Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, John Fetterman delivers the worst debate performance in American history. But his self-destruction is not solely his own fault. The blame also lies with the Democrat Party, and also his wife. I’ll explain. Also, the governor of New York humiliates herself in her debate. Not quite as bad as Fetterman, but almost. And chest mutilation procedures on minors have risen by 400 percent in the last few years. Plus, we’ll hear from a Hungarian politician who explains why they don’t have to worry about this problem in their country. And Bono discovers, to his horror, that maybe free market capitalism isn’t so bad after all.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access movies, shows, documentaries and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Tune into Daily Wire Backstage TONIGHT at 7pm Eastern at dailywireplus.com
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, John Fetterman delivers the worst debate performance in American history, but his self-destruction is not solely his own fault.
The blame also lies with the Democrat Party and also his wife.
I'll explain why.
Also, the governor of New York humiliates herself in her debate as well.
Not quite as bad as Fetterman, but almost.
And chest mutilation procedures on minors have risen by 400% in the last few years.
Plus, we'll hear from a Hungarian politician who explains why they don't have that problem in their own country.
And Bono discovers, to his horror, that maybe free market capitalism isn't so bad after all.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
What are your family's values?
Faith?
Church on Sunday?
Does your family believe in serving?
Did you vaccinate your kids or did you say, I don't think so?
How does your family define men and women?
What kind of value do they put on life?
Your children, they look to you to define their values and their perspectives of the world.
But what if you weren't here to do that for them?
In the event that you die, who will ensure the values you hold dear are upheld by your kids?
Epic Will can help with that.
A will lets you determine who will raise your kids in the event that you die before you're done raising them.
This is a big deal, and it's your responsibility as a parent.
It's why we at The Daily Wire have partnered with Epic Will.
Take five minutes a day, go to epicwill.com, use promo code WALSH to save 10% on Epic Will's Complete Will package.
But more importantly, you gotta do this so that I know that you did it.
So that you're accountable to me.
So that I know that you took this crucial step towards doing the right thing and taking care of your family.
I know who you are.
I will be checking.
I am watching.
Epicwill.com.
Promo code Walsh.
No excuses.
Go there now.
Get it done.
Well, over the centuries, many historians, anthropologists, social critics have pointed to certain signs that a civilization is about to collapse.
Various lists of red flags are, you know, usually pretty similar.
Population decline, war, economic instability, mass uncontrolled migration, moral decay, etc.
Otherwise known to contemporary Americans as just your average Wednesday.
But it seems that these observers have all missed one major alarm bell.
Along with all the other symptoms just listed, a society is in decline and on the verge of catastrophe if it starts electing brain-damaged people to lead it.
The future is probably not very bright for a country that looks to those with severe mental defects for political leadership.
It is a subtle sign of cultural dysfunction.
And by subtle, I mean that it's a flashing, blaring siren with a bright neon sign that says DANGER in huge capital letters.
It's already too late, of course, to steer entirely clear of this particular hazard in our case.
We have a senile dementia patient in the White House, not to mention a mummified Speaker of the House.
And now Democrats in Pennsylvania are looking to add to Washington, D.C.' 's burgeoning neurology ward by electing a stroke victim who literally cannot understand human language or speak it.
Last night, Senate candidates John Fetterman and Dr. Oz faced each other in the first and, mercifully for Fetterman, only Pennsylvania debate.
It was, in Fetterman's case, a performance that, in the year 2022, could be described, I guess, as presidential, to steal a joke from Ann Coulter that she tweeted this morning.
Fetterman could barely string a coherent thought together.
Even before the stroke, he could barely do that.
But then afterwards, it's a whole other deal.
I mean, there's no hope at all.
The debate was destined, then, to be a train wreck.
And yet, against all odds, The disaster managed to exceed everyone's expectations.
It was worse than we thought.
It was as though there was a train wreck, and then an airplane crashed right into the site of the train wreck, and then a tornado came through, followed by an earthquake, followed by a wildfire.
It was, in other words, the worst debate performance ever captured on film in the history of American politics.
And that is still somehow, I think, an understatement.
So the clips have already circulated widely on social media.
There's probably no need to play them now.
But we will anyway.
Things started awkwardly enough with Federman saying hello to the audience and goodbye in the same breath.
What qualifies you to be a U.S.
Senator?
You have 60 seconds.
Hi.
Good night, everybody.
I'm running to serve Pennsylvania.
He's running to use Pennsylvania.
Here's a man that spent more than $20 million of his own money to try to buy that seat.
I'm also having to talk about something called the Oz Rule.
That if he's on TV, he's lying.
He did that during his career on his TV show.
He's done that during his campaign about lying about our record here.
And he's also lying probably during this debate.
Well, it was only downhill from there.
Though I will say that his greeting reminds me of myself any time my wife forces me to go to a party.
Hi, everyone.
Good night.
Okay, let's go home, honey.
Let's go.
But I'm usually forced to stay there for much longer than I prefer, and Fetterman was in the same situation.
The debate only lasted an hour, but Fetterman couldn't make it more than 90 seconds before the full-on collapse began.
So here he is trying to explain his plan to make higher education more affordable.
How exactly, Mr. Fetterman, do you propose doing that to make it more affordable for families?
I just believe.
It costs too much, and I believe providing the resources to reduce the tuition to allow families to be able to afford it.
Good point.
And here he is on the minimum wage.
Listen.
And how can a man, you know, with, with, you know, ten gigantic mansions, you know, has unwilling to talk about a willing wage for anybody?
Imagine a signal mom trying with two children, trying to raise with them, realizing making $31,000 a year, you know, $15 an hour.
Yeah, those Signal Moms.
Gotta watch out for the Signal Moms.
So you probably get the idea.
There was one other moment, the moment that still managed to stand out as especially embarrassing, even amid all of that, when Federman was asked to explain his flip-flopping stance on fracking.
Here's what he said.
Mr. Oz, I do want to clarify something.
You're saying tonight that you support fracking, that you've always supported fracking, but there is that 2018 interview that you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all.
So how do you square the two?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
I do support fracking and I support fracking and I stand and I do support fracking.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Well, that clears that up.
Now, where do the Democrats go from here?
They're a guy not fit to be in the U.S.
Senate, not fit to be anywhere, really, except in bed at home, recovering, and everyone can see that now.
It was put on display for the whole country to see last night.
Do they acknowledge this plain reality and let the chips fall where they may?
No, of course not, because acknowledging reality has never been a favorite pastime of the left.
Rather, their favorite pastime, as we know, is playing the victim card, and they were quick on the draw after this debate.
Liz Plank is a left-wing pundit who was one of the many blue checks on Twitter to repeat this agreed-upon talking point.
She tweeted, Yes, debating your opponent in a Senate race is now bullying.
Ableism has become the leftist buzzword of the day.
MSNBC got that ball rolling immediately after the debate.
Listen to this.
One of the things you posit in your article is that Fetterman's campaign is hoping to turn his sort of vulnerability into an asset here.
Do you think he did so on the debate stage tonight?
I think it's tough to say whether or not it will wind up being an asset with voters, but it was certainly an example of such remarkable transparency.
The opposite of what the Oz campaign has sort of asserted, which is that he's somehow hiding something about his health.
I mean, showing up for an hour debate, and it was, as he said, starting out, he said he was going to talk about the elephant in the room, he played the clip, he said, I'm going to miss words, and you could tell.
I wrote in my story about how in my interview with him, there was a moment where he became frustrated and stressed out, and it made some of his communicative problems worse.
And I think that this context, and what you described as the insanely high stakes of this election, this single debate, clearly This was a candidate who was feeling stress, and there was such intense scrutiny, often ableist scrutiny, on how he was going to communicate.
And he just did a debate in front of, you know, the nation, you know, an audience of anyone who could listen.
And it was so transparent.
He did fumble.
He did make verbal mistakes.
You know, and it was all on view.
Transparent.
That's one way of putting it.
I wish I'd been this clever back when I was in, like, high school, and I had to bring my report cards home that were never very impressive.
And if I had thought to couch it that way when showing my parents, listen, Mom and Dad, I'm being remarkably transparent with this.
You can see here.
Let's address the elephant in the room here, okay, guys?
I don't study or do my homework, but I'm being transparent.
I'm being vulnerable.
Now, if you expect a United States senator, that a United States senator should be able to understand words and speak them, you are guilty of engaging in ableist scrutiny, we were just told.
Indeed, as the left has explained, it is not Federman who should drop out of the race, but Dr. Oz.
Because anything less would be ableism.
An Axios article quotes a senior Democrat official in Pennsylvania saying this, quote, I wish Federman was in a better place to clap back.
Overall, I argue it wasn't great, but for us, it was still a draw.
Remember in these next few weeks that Oz's campaign is spending tens of millions of dollars against a man with a major medical condition.
How dare Dr. Oz run campaign ads.
He shouldn't be campaigning at all.
Fetterman has a major medical condition, which doesn't mean that he should drop out and go home, but rather that he should be given the position out of sympathy.
That's the argument they're going with.
And it's entirely consistent with the argument they make on many other subjects.
It is bigoted to acknowledge reality.
In this case, the reality that a brain-damaged man is not suited for the U.S.
Senate.
Our responsibility is to deny reality for the sake of the member of a victim group.
In fact, from the last perspective, if anything, the stroke makes Federman more qualified than he was before, because before it, he was just a, quote, cisgender white male.
Not a lot of victim points.
Now he's disabled, giving him at least a few victim points, whereas previously he had none, and that's what qualifies him.
Of course, the whole concept of ableism is absurd.
To be ableist, apparently, according to how the term is used.
is simply to make judgments about what people are able to do.
And if that's what it means to be an ableist, then we should all be ableist.
An ableist person commits the sin of being rational and realistic, of being aware of human limitations and taking them into account, of making decisions that are grounded in reality.
Believing that a person should be given a job if he's best able and qualified to perform the duties and functions of that job.
This is ableism, evidently.
And if it is, our country needs a whole lot more ableism of this type.
And there's another point to be made about all this.
Under normal circumstances, you know, I would have sympathy for somebody dealing with the aftermath of a stroke.
It is quite a sad thing to be unable to form words, unable to understand.
But my sympathy in this case doesn't extend very far because Fetterman chose to stay in the race.
He chose to continue pursuing power.
He put himself in this position knowing he's unsuited for it.
In a similar way, I have sympathy for people with visual impairments.
If you're blind, I have sympathy for blind people.
I wouldn't make fun of a blind person.
Who would?
But if the pilot of an airplane has undisclosed visual impairments, And chose to sit in the captain's chair anyway, then my sympathy for him dries up rather quickly.
Because instead now I have sympathy for the passengers in the plane, especially if I'm one of them.
He has chosen to put them at the mercy of his disability in a way that is unfair to them.
And he deserves criticism for that.
Harsh criticism.
Same goes for Fetterman.
Same goes for Biden.
They are responsible for their choices.
But they're not the only ones responsible.
In both cases, immense scorn should be directed at the Democrat Party puppet masters who chose to keep these guys in their positions, in fact pressured them to stay there, we can assume, knowing what a disaster it would be for them personally and, more importantly, for the country.
And yet their guilt pales in comparison to the wives of both men.
This, to me, is maybe the most important point here to take away from this.
Fetterman and Biden have lots in common, and not the least of which is the fact that they both are married to awful, spoiled, manipulative, power-hungry women who have utterly failed to fulfill their responsibilities as wives.
Jill Biden knows better than anyone, especially if she's a doctor, that her husband is incoherent and senile.
She knows that.
And yet she's propped him up, dragged him along.
She kept him going politically so that she could ride his coattails to the White House.
What Jill is doing is nothing less than elder abuse.
I mean, it should be criminal what she's doing.
And then there's Fetterman's wife, okay?
She should have sat her husband down and told him that he cannot continue.
She should have forced him to put his health first.
That's what a good wife does.
Like, forced to the extent of saying, you cannot do this.
If you do, I am not going to be by your side.
I am not going to show up at the campaign.
I am not going to do that.
I'm not going to go along with you to your self-destruction.
That's what a good wife would do.
And every man needs a wife who will do that.
Even if we aren't running for Senate, we all need wives who will look out for our health and for our well-being, even when we are not, because sometimes we don't.
A man will hatch all kinds of crazy schemes and plans, some of them perhaps brilliant, but others disastrous and self-destructive.
I mean, we think they're all brilliant, and maybe on occasion some of them are, but then others are very much not.
And we need our wives to look out for us, just as we look out for them, though often in different kinds of situations.
So a man will often need to be the voice of reason when his wife is getting herself into some sort of overly emotional personal feud or drama.
That's when a man needs to be the one who's there, the voice of reason, talking some sense into her.
A woman will often need to be the voice of reason when her husband has come up with some sort of insane idea that might lead to disaster.
Women overreact to things.
Men bite off more than they can chew.
And they both see the other's blind spots.
So together they make a formidable team, if they're both fulfilling their obligations and loving each other in the ways that each need to be loved.
But there are men who are too weak or too disinterested to speak up and give their wives the guidance they need.
And there are women who are too greedy and personally ambitious to stop their husbands from extending themselves too far.
This is what is happening in Fetterman's case and in Biden's.
And in many other marriages across the country.
These women are not the only manipulative women who are taking advantage of their husbands hubris and stupidity.
The difference is that the consequences, in their case, will be felt by the whole country.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
All right.
The left on Twitter will have some fun with some elements of that opening monologue, is my prediction.
Matt Walsh said that men should offer guidance to their wives.
Gasp!
Yep.
Okay, there were more debates last night.
Democrats fared poorly in all of them, like in New York, where Kathy Hochul faced off against Lee Zeldin.
Now, in the lead-up, before we get to this, actually, the New York Times has an article about this and about the anxiety in the Hochul camp.
It says, for months, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York has trusted that the state's strong Democratic majority would keep her in office, largely on the strength of a simple message.
Her Republican opponent was too close to Donald J. Trump and would roll back abortion rights.
But just two weeks before Election Day, a rapidly tightening contest has Ms.
Hochul racing to expand her closing argument as Democrats warily concede they might have misjudged powerful fears driving the electorate, particularly around crime.
In just the last few days, Ms.
Hochul stood with Mayor Eric Adams to announce a new flood of police officers into the New York City subways.
She visited five Harlem churches to assure stalwart black voters that she was laser-focused on safety.
And she highlighted new statistics showing that authorities were seizing more guns under her watch.
Ms. Ockel said at one of her stops in Harlem, "We believe in justice, the justice that Jesus teaches us,
Ms.
but it's also about safety.
We are laser focused on keeping you, your children, and your grandchildren safe."
Her campaign has begun recalibrating its paid message to shifting the focus of millions of dollars in ad spending
to highlight the governor's efforts to stoke the economy and improve public safety,
notably including a package of modest changes to the state's bail laws that has divided her party.
Changes that will do nothing at all.
They're worried about the possibility that for the first time in decades, a statewide race could be won by a Republican.
And they're worried about it because the state of New York, and New York City in particular, is just descending into anarchy and violent crime is rising.
And as it turns out, and this is a revelation for the left and for Democrats, they can't believe this.
They really can't.
They didn't see this coming.
But it turns out that people want to be safe in their communities.
People want their children to be safe.
They want to feel like their children can walk outside without being shot and killed.
They want to feel as though they can use public transportation.
Without being assaulted or raped or killed by a crazed, drug-addled homeless man.
What a shocker!
This is what people want.
And they are concerned about that far more than they're concerned about anything that the Democrats spend their time talking about.
Transphobia and LGBT, this and that.
People aren't waking up in the morning worried about that.
They're not.
They're waking up in the morning worried about their families, their kids.
Can they afford to feed their families?
Can they afford to put gas in their car and go to work?
Are they going to be safe?
These are the things they're worried about.
So that explains the pivot to public safety.
Which No matter how they pivot, it's not going to make a difference.
Because the modern Democrat party just doesn't... None of these people have it in themselves to actually do what needs to be done to address violent crime.
Because making modest changes here and there, policy changes, that's not going to do anything.
You know, in order, if you really want to put, if you really want to tamp down violent crime, all you gotta do is look at what New York was doing in the, you know, under Rudy Giuliani, or even Bloomberg.
Back when they actually had a handle on the violent crime epidemic.
And what did you do there?
You come down hard on the criminals.
And you have to do some things that might make people feel a little bit uncomfortable.
You know, all the things that now are anathema.
We can't do that.
We can't stop and frisk.
We can't do any of those things.
Well, you also have to come down on the criminals, if you can.
Like, head them off at the pass, so you don't wait around for them to do something so horrific and so brutal that everyone would agree they need to be in prison forever.
You want to put them away before that.
Which doesn't mean that you're putting people in prison before they commit any crime at all.
Rather, when someone sends a message that they have no interest in being a law-abiding citizen, They have no interest in being productive members of a civilized society.
When they send you that message, committing crime after crime after crime, violent or otherwise, you put them away.
You say to them, OK, we got your message loud and clear.
We're going to put you in a cage now because you want to be an animal and not a human being.
And so, unfortunately, we're going to have to give you what you have asked for.
Democrats don't have it in them.
And that was clear in the debate.
So there's a couple of clips I want to play.
Here's one on where we talk about the issue of crime.
And one particular phrase from Hokeel that was very interesting.
Listen to this.
This governor, who still, to this moment, we're halfway through the debate, she still hasn't talked about locking up anyone committing any crimes.
Okay.
Anyone who commits a crime under our laws, especially with the change they made to bail, has consequences.
I don't know why that's so important to you.
I don't know why that's so important to you.
But I just said that they don't understand.
The Democrats, they actually don't understand why people care about this, why they want to feel safe.
And they don't.
She's right about that.
I believe her.
She doesn't know why that's... Okay, we'll put violent criminals in jail if that's so important to you.
Alright, fine.
We'll try to put someone in... a criminal in prison so they don't murder another, you know, innocent person walking down the street if that's so important to you.
Well, we know what's important to Democrats like Hokeyil, things like making sure that we're killing as many babies as possible.
So here's her answer when she's asked, is there any restriction?
Are there any restrictions at all on abortion that you would support?
Here's what she says.
Is there any restrictions around abortion that you would approve of?
What we have in New York state is simply a codification of Roe v. Wade.
So what has been out there since the Supreme Court, before the Supreme Court, She's deeply concerned that her daughter, or rather her granddaughter, won't be able to kill babies.
and my daughter would have a right, my granddaughter does not have the same right that I had to
make a determination in concert with myself or my doctor if it's after the sixth month.
So we have the same restrictions and anyone who says otherwise is just incorrect.
She's deeply concerned that her daughter or rather her granddaughter won't be able to
kill babies.
This is the sort of thing that she's worried about.
I said most Americans wake up, they're worried about, can they afford food?
Can they put gas in their car?
Are they going to be safe?
Cathy Hilkiel wakes up worried that her granddaughter won't be able to kill babies.
That her own progeny won't be wiped off the face of the earth, in the womb.
That's what she, she wakes up in the middle of the night, cold sweats.
Worried that not enough babies are being killed.
Now, she doesn't answer the question, are there any restrictions you would support?
And she doesn't answer because the answer is no.
Of course, there are no restrictions whatsoever.
And that is the mainstream Democrat position on abortion now.
No restrictions, abortion right up to the moment of birth and also afterwards.
And this is something that Republicans need to continue to highlight because You know, what do Democrats want to do when it comes to abortion?
They want to make the entire conversation centered around the hardest kinds of cases.
They want to center the entire conversation around the 1% of abortions that are linked to, you know, rape, incest, allegedly life of the mother.
Although, heavy qualifications on those, by the way.
But that's still 1%.
Even according to pro-abortion groups like the Guttmacher Institute.
Even according to their own numbers.
We're talking about 1% of abortions.
And they want the entire abortion debate to center around the 1% of cases.
And what Republicans should be doing, as much as possible, is saying, Before we talk about the 1% of cases, let's deal with the 99% of cases.
Let's deal with the 99% of cases when babies are being killed purely as a form of birth control.
What about that?
Now you answer all the questions on the 99% of cases, all the questions that the public might have about that, then we can talk about the 1%.
But we're not going to talk about the 1% at all if you can't talk about the 99%.
All right.
And Kathy Hochul, just to summarize here, remember, she was not elected governor the first time.
She ended up in that position because Cuomo got run out of town.
And so she's made it all the way to the governor's mansion, having, I don't know, she's won maybe one political race during that time.
She is just road coattails all the way to the governor's mansion.
She is a picture of mediocrity.
And this is really who runs the country.
I don't mean Cathy Hokeel specifically.
I mean mediocre, liberal white women.
They really run the country when it comes down to it.
So much of our culture is run by people like this.
All right, moving to this from the Daily Wire.
It says, chest reconstruction surgeries performed on minors across the United States increased by approximately 400% during a three-year span, according to a new report.
That's 400%.
I'm not misspeaking. 400%.
The Journal of the American Medical Association International Peer-Reviewed General Medical Journal published that researchers from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee reported that 1,130 chest mutilating surgeries were performed on children younger than 18 years old from 2016 to 2019.
Of those encounters, 1,114 were mastectomies, while 16 were augmentation mammoplasties, bringing the annual number of child mutilations during the reported year to a 389% increase.
The study noted, To our knowledge, this study is the largest investigation to date of gender-affirming chest reconstruction in a pediatric population.
The results demonstrate substantial increases in gender-affirming chest reconstruction for adolescents.
The report noted, reconstructive genital surgery is typically not performed in adolescents, but masculinizing chest reconstruction, mastectomy, and feminizing chest reconstruction, augmentation mammoplasty, may be performed in outpatient and ambulatory surgery settings.
So that is a 400% increase.
And yet we are still told that there is no social contagion here at work.
No social contagion, just a 400% increase.
And in some ways, you know, it's, it's, it's easy to get to that 400% increase because what that also tells you is that prior to 2016, it just like, it wasn't happening at all.
It effectively wasn't happening at all up until about six or seven years ago.
And now it's happening with, I mean, to say increasing regularity is vast understatement.
And if we don't do something about this, I mean, this is a trend.
Trends like this, they don't tail off on their own.
Especially when you have powerful institutions that are feeding the trend.
This is not happening by accident, obviously.
There's a lot of money behind it, and a lot of money being made on it.
And if you don't do something about it, then if we keep with this rate of growth, Ten years from now, what does it look like?
What percentage of the female adolescent population ten years from now will have been mutilated?
I mean, the numbers are jaw-dropping, unless we do something about it.
And when we talk about doing something about it, that's not just fighting in the culture, but that also means laws.
There need to be laws passed, which of course, as you know, is what we're trying to do here in Tennessee.
Now, in other countries across the world, they don't have this problem.
Andy Ngo has an interview with a man named Balazs Orban, who's a member of the administration of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
And here they talk about the Hungarian approach to gender issues.
And there's quite a lot in this short clip that's interesting, so listen to this.
In the United States, research is showing that from a five-year period of 2017 to 2022, the number of teens and young adults who are trans-identifying had doubled.
In the United Kingdom, there is a 4,415% increase in young people seeking gender treatment since 2009.
These are huge... I mean, this is phenomenal.
Is this happening in your country?
Well, we realized just a couple of years ago that something similar is happening in Western Europe and in the United States.
But until this moment, it's quite an unknown issue in Hungary.
We don't have, for example, a word.
Hungarian word for gender.
So what we decided is to act immediately, which for us means that we should ask the Hungarian people in all the strategic issues, what do they think?
Whether they want to go to that direction, which is offered by the media, by the NGOs, by Brussels, or they want to find another pattern.
So that's why we introduced the referendum, where we asked four questions.
from the Hungarians and with overwhelmed majority they made the decision that they
they said no to gender propaganda for minors in schools especially without the consent of parents
and they said no to gender treatments for minors so what I can say is that
so in your country your medical institutions do not by law cannot provide transitioning services
or surgical treatment to mind.
This is the case and it's not my opinion as a politician.
It's the opinion of more than 3.5 million Hungarian voters and we have to respect that.
They don't even have a word for gender in Hungarian.
And that's the case in many countries and many languages across the world.
Now, they have a word for sex, they have a word to indicate male or female, but this other undefinable, incoherent category that's separate from sex but also not, that doesn't exist in the Hungarian language, doesn't exist in most languages.
I mean, arguably any other language except English, because we're the ones who invented it.
But in Hungary, this is an issue.
This is obvious.
Of course, we're not going to allow this to happen to kids.
And what this means is that other countries in the world, they are looking at us as a bunch of depraved lunatics.
Forget about shining city on a hill.
Those days, sadly, very sadly, are gone.
Those are long gone.
Other countries in the world, including other European countries, they look at us and they're flabbergasted.
Not in a good way.
They see a culture that has descended fully into lunacy.
And they're right.
That's what's so sad about it.
I can't even disagree.
It's shameful.
It's embarrassing.
And as you know, as someone who has actually gone outside of the Western bubble and talked about these issues with people who exist outside of that bubble, I've experienced this myself.
And in What Is A Woman, it leads to some very interesting footage, and some of it is quite funny, but at the same time, it's humiliating.
Because I'm an American.
And I want to be proud of my country.
It's very difficult to be proud when you're one of the only countries in the world that sexually mutilates kids.
All right, Daily Wire has this.
Megan Markle said she's afraid to speak her mind or be clear about what she needs for fear of sounding demanding and being perceived as an angry black woman.
During Spotify's Archetypes podcast on Tuesday, the host, Markle, spoke with actress Issa Rae and comedian-actress Ziwe Fumidoh about her reluctance to be more assertive.
The episode is titled, Upending the Angry Black Woman Myth.
She says, I'm particular.
I think a high tide raises all ships.
We're all going to succeed, so let's make sure it's really great because it's a shared success for everybody.
But I know that I will find myself cowering and tiptoeing into a room.
And then, okay, then she goes on to talk about how she's afraid.
And every time she, if she speaks up, then she'll be an angry black woman.
It's all racist.
And just every day that now, because she has this podcast, every day there's another headline about her complaining about something.
Last week it was, she was complaining that she was objectified because she had a job on Deal or No Deal where she was one of the chicks holding the briefcases.
Apparently she was like kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to be part of this game show.
It's not a choice she made on her own.
So, every episode she complains about something else.
Meghan Markle is, she is the embodiment of the sort of person who never has a good day.
You know, you ask her how her day was, and it's always stressful, it's always too busy, there was always too much traffic, the line was always too long at the grocery store.
Not that Markle shops for her own groceries, of course.
I'm just saying, because she's rich and famous and doesn't do that, but she is the rich and famous version of that kind of person.
And it's not so much focusing on the negatives.
It is that.
But even more than that, it is not ever wanting to concede that something went well, that things are okay, that you had a fine time, that you have it easy, that you have a nice life.
There are people who just don't want to admit this no matter what, because many people in our culture today are addicted to pity.
Meghan Markle, again, she's the embodiment of this.
She's the mascot.
Someone who's addicted to pity.
People that have given up on being loved or being respected or being admired, they might want those things sort of in theory, but they can't reach for them because that means they have to give up the pity.
Right?
You can't reach for greatness.
Um, wanting to be successful, and to be respected, and to be admired, while also clinging on to your self-pitying.
You have to let go of that, and they can't do it.
Because pity is a drug to them.
They're addicted to it.
And that is certainly the case for Meghan Markle.
Alright, I gotta move on to this quickly because I don't want to run out of time for it again.
It is very important.
As mentioned yesterday, I was alerted this week to a strange set of circumstances.
Evidently, according to fans of the Hallmark Channel, and there are still fans of that channel, there's a new Christmas Hallmark movie that features a character, or has a cameo appearance of a character briefly, who, these fans insist, must be based on me.
This character is a parody of me, I was told, and not a very flattering one.
So I've obtained the footage of this possible Matt Walsh-inspired character.
I don't know what we would call this.
This is Matt Face.
This is a character in Matt Face.
We'll go through it, and you tell me what you think.
By the way, I have no idea what the plot of this movie is, to the extent that Hallmark movies even have plots.
I'm not sure.
It doesn't matter.
But we'll just, I can't really set this up, but we'll just dive right into it.
Noel, I'm so glad you got here before Bert.
Okay, yeah, why's that?
It's no big deal.
There's just a couple of things you ought to know before you meet him.
I'm so sorry, I'm just finding out about all this now.
Okay, like what?
Minor things.
I mean, nothing horrible.
No.
You guys, you're making it sound like I'm being set up with some sort of nutcase.
No, no, I don't... I don't know.
Mark?
Uh, would we call Bert a nutcase?
Maybe more like an outsider.
Mark, that's not very convincing.
I should go check on the roast.
Shannon, what have you gotten me into?
He wasn't even on social media, so I couldn't look him up.
I know, I know.
I thought that was refreshing until I found out why.
Okay, and why?
He's been banned from all social media platforms.
What?
Banned?
Just from spreading misinformation.
Oh my gosh.
It's fine.
He has a lot of good qualities.
Like?
He's... single.
That's not a quality.
Alright, can we pause a second?
I just need to take a breather.
I need to take a breather because the acting is so bad.
This is hard to watch.
With the music in the background and the whole thing.
So, this is someone banned from social media for spreading misinformation.
Now, we know that the Hallmark Channel has long since gone woke, so this is not surprising at all.
They're presenting this as just, like, if someone's banned from social media, It must be because they actually spread misinformation.
As opposed to the reality, of course, which is that when you're banned because you have said something that the left has deemed misinformation, usually because they can't engage with it, and so they just label it misinformation and use that as a pretense for getting rid of you.
No surprise that the Hallmark Channel has adopted the leftist Viewpoint on this.
And also, of course, if someone's banned from social media, it means that you should be afraid to go out with them or be around them.
You know, this is someone.
Only nutcases would run afoul of the Twitter police.
If you run afoul of the Twitter police, you must be crazy.
Alright, so they're talking about what is allegedly the Mii character, and he's about to make an appearance, I think.
Let's keep watching.
You said he's cute, right?
Like, you think he's cute.
I do.
She's here.
He's here.
I can't believe you're making me do this.
You're doing this.
Let's go.
Wow, your house is very clean.
Thanks.
Hi.
Allow me to introduce you to my lovely sister.
Well, that's why I'm here.
This is Noelle.
Hi.
You want this one?
No, I don't do handshakes.
Those germs.
Boom.
I would never do that.
I would never do that.
Can I get you something to drink, Bert?
Sure.
Something non-alcoholic and non-carbonated.
Oh, that's definitely not me.
No artificial colors or flavorings or high-fructose corn syrup.
Okay.
Okay, so tap water good?
Is it filtered?
I'm pretty sure.
Yeah.
Alright, that's fine.
Mark, I'm gonna have some water as well.
My mouth suddenly feels very dry.
You got it.
I'm gonna go help Mark with the prep and that way you two can get to know each other.
Now you're socially awkward, so that... That's one in the me column.
My sister, she's a really great cook.
Yeah.
So, Noelle, are you one of those people who believe our planet is actually round?
All right.
Okay.
I've seen enough.
All right.
She's got the polka dot shirt, beard, glasses, very dry personality.
But it looks like the views that are being assigned to this person are not my views at all.
Especially after COVID.
I mean, someone who doesn't want to shake hands because they're afraid of germs.
That is very much a leftist thing now.
Worried about high fructose corn syrup.
I've never even said the phrase high fructose corn syrup.
This is the first time I've ever even said it.
Only wants non-alcoholic drinks at a party.
That is definitely not me.
But, at the same time, this is Hallmark, right?
This is their caricature of somebody.
Obviously, they're trying to... It's a character of somebody on the right, and so they're just ascribing every nutty opinion to that person.
I don't know.
I don't have a verdict on this.
I will leave it up to the jury to decide.
Because, you know, the other thing is, just because someone has a beard and glasses, And yeah, the hairstyle's very similar, I'll give you that.
But not everyone with a beard and glasses looks like me.
There are some similar... I don't know.
I'm in the middle.
But I leave it up to you to determine.
Let's get to the comment section.
Here come the preferred pronoun and gender questions, and then actually asked what my sexual orientation is.
I promptly refused to answer such questions and quit the job.
I'm with you, Matt.
I refuse to play their game.
The truth does matter.
Now, I know that who cares about silly things like laws, but is it not illegal to ask Employees, what their sexual orientation is?
Am I missing something?
Justin says, the left, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
Also the left, pulls fire alarm in a crowded theater.
Well, that's a good point.
Dusk Deepen says, Matt is very close to acknowledging that widespread violence is on the horizon.
A society has never been this unstable and managed to avoid a bloody ending.
On the horizon?
It's not on the horizon.
We have reached the horizon, my friend.
We are already there.
We are experiencing now widespread violence.
Now, if what you're referring to is violence in the form of like a civil war situation, then, you know, as I've said before, I think that's not outside the realm of possibility that we could have a civil war.
I think that our divisions are deep enough Between the sides, historically, if history is a precedent here, then it could lead in that direction.
But for a bunch of other reasons, including the fact that we have these ideological differences, but they're not as cleanly divided on geographic lines.
There obviously are blue areas and red areas, but these things intermingle enough that what I would predict is just, well, you said widespread Violence.
Pockets of violence.
Increasing kind of chaos.
In a much more disorganized fashion.
And I think that is what we're experiencing right now.
Ken says, Don't tell me what to do, first of all.
I will cry over this if I want to.
I will cry over your faulty logic to begin with.
like it, buy a window seat, stop crying, snowflake.
Don't tell me what to do, first of all.
I will cry over this if I want to.
I will cry over your faulty logic to begin with.
Just because you're closest to something means that you own it.
So if I come to your house and I sit on your couch, I own it?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
If I'm closest to your dog, I own your dog?
If I'm closest to the big fish tank when I'm taking my kids to the Rainforest Cafe, do I own the fish tank?
Can I take a fish out of the fish tank for a snack?
Because the appetizers always take two and a half hours at Rainforest Cafe, can I do that?
Think of the consequences of what you're saying here, Ken.
Speaking of anarchy, think of the anarchy that would ensue if we adopted this principle.
This is like a child's understanding of ownership.
I'm closest to it, so I own it?
What kind of ethical framework is that?
No, the window is owned.
I am, as you know, a proponent of equity.
And the window is owned.
Ownership of the window is equitable.
It is one-third ownership for everybody in the row.
Unless I'm closest to it, in which case I'll just do whatever I want.
John says, Matt, when are you going to denounce Ben for shaving his beard?
Was the whole beard growing thing just a stunt to promote Jeremy's Razors?
I don't know what it was.
Well, I know what it was.
It was a betrayal.
I thought that Ben had finally been reformed.
That he had seen the error of his beardless ways.
I thought that we, the two of us, could finally be co-beardsmen bonded in that sacred follicle brotherhood.
I was proud of him, to tell you the truth.
To be a little vulnerable myself, I was proud of him.
And then one day, without warning, he shaves it off, baring his naked face to the world.
It's indecent, for one thing.
Men should not be showing off their naked chins.
It is grotesque.
We need to start shaming naked chin like we shame or used to shame people who show off other parts of their body.
I thought Ben finally understood this.
So I don't know.
I have nothing to offer here but my heartbreak.
I haven't fully processed my feelings.
Or come to grips with my trauma.
But thank you for asking.
It's been a busy month here at The Daily Wire.
We released The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, a new documentary that buries BLM.
We held a rally to end child mutilation at the Tennessee State Capitol.
And we are hours away from another exciting event, which is Daily Wire Backstage.
Join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Cole... Michael Coles.
Michael Kohl's, we'll just go with it.
Michael Kohl's, Andrew Klavan, and God King, Jeremy Boring.
Tonight at 6 p.m.
Central, 7 p.m.
Eastern, we'll be talking about the midterms, leftist meltdowns, and a whole lot more.
It's a backstage you don't want to miss.
So tune in tonight at dailywireplus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, I've never been a fan of U2.
I don't know if I've ever even met a fan of their music.
I don't think anyone has ever liked U2, and yet they are one of the most successful musical acts in the history of the world.
It's not clear exactly how they managed to pull this off.
They became, you might say, the world's elevator music, or maybe society's hold music.
Something you hear all the time, whether you like it or not, and you don't really like it, but you also don't viscerally hate it.
The music just is, it exists, and it exists everywhere, and nobody knows why, and nobody ever asks.
And nobody can distinguish one U2 song from another.
No one can.
We know every U2 song, and yet we don't know any of them.
It's one of the most confounding riddles of life.
The man behind this mystery, Bono, was profiled yesterday in the New York Times in a piece titled, Bono is still trying to figure out U2 and himself.
It only deepens the mystery to discover that the lead singer of the band also doesn't know why it exists or why anybody likes it.
As for figuring out himself, Bono is in his mid-60s now.
It's probably time to start arriving at a few conclusions before it's too late.
He's apparently written a memoir, which explains why he was doing the New York Times interview.
Most of the interview doesn't interest me, but there is one admission that did interest me.
He says this, quote, I ended up as an activist in a very different place from where I started.
I thought that if we just redistributed resources, then we could solve every problem.
I now know that's not true.
There's a funny moment when you realize, as an activist, the off-ramp out of extreme poverty is, ugh, commerce.
It's entrepreneurial capitalism.
Imagine that.
Who could have ever guessed?
It's capitalism.
Now, I will say that, you know, I don't treat capitalism like a religion, as some establishment conservative types have done historically.
I believe in the free market.
I don't think that our free market principles, though, should preclude us from doing things like regulating big tech, holding it accountable for the ways that it censors and suppresses speech.
I also don't think that defending the free market must necessarily mean that we have to be ardent defenders of behemoth transnational corporations.
The relationship between government corporations, big tech, media, the kind of systemic human centipede, as I have previously described it, is such that the phrase free market barely even applies to these institutions.
They've all become like quasi-governmental institutions in their own way.
Further, I don't think that being a capitalist means that we must surrender our culture to smut and filth, insisting that any effort to enforce basic standards of human decency is somehow an assault on the free market or on free speech.
So these are all important caveats.
Perhaps caveat isn't the right word.
They are more so specifications or descriptions of what I mean when I talk about capitalism.
And the descriptions are important because not everyone means the same thing.
In fact, Bono himself transitions immediately from admitting that capitalism is the best way out of poverty to making a sales pitch for globalization.
He conflates the two.
Globalization and capitalism.
But they're not the same thing.
That is a specific sort of capitalism, the type that a left-wing multi-millionaire celebrity is destined to support.
But it's not the only option.
And in the case of impoverished third world countries, what they need most is not globalization, but a legitimate local economy with thriving small businesses, and so on.
So with all that said, Bono is correct in the fundamental revelation, at which he has arrived about 60 years late, that the way out of poverty is through entrepreneurial capitalism.
He's wrong, though, that this is somehow a separate concept from redistributing resources.
And that's kind of a false choice.
Because one way or another, resources are going to be, if you want to put it this way, redistributed.
That's because there are finite resources available.
There's a certain amount of food, a certain amount of houses, cars, a certain amount of capital in the world.
There are a lot of these things, and more can be produced and are produced every day, but the amount is still finite as opposed to infinite.
It's just another way of saying that you can't make all of your necessities and your desired luxuries materialize out of thin air.
If you want something or you need something, you have to obtain it.
It must be transferred or distributed, if you like, into your possession.
The only other option is to build, harvest, or hunt it yourself, but very few people in the modern world can live an entirely self-sustaining life, and it's not generally a path to prosperity.
And besides, even if you go that route, you still need to obtain some of the tools necessary to do it successfully.
So the question becomes not whether resources are distributed from one party to another.
Everyone agrees on that.
If you want to have any kind of economy, and every civilized society, and even uncivilized ones, must have economies.
Then that's just the nature of the beast.
And broadly speaking here, simplifying to a significant extent, there are two ways of getting the resources from one party to another.
You can do it by plunder and seizure, which is a stronger force taking the resources it wants and giving it to whoever they determine, starting, of course, with themselves.
Or you can do it through a marketplace, where one party obtains the desired good or service from another party, and an exchange pays an agreed-upon price.
Neither of these systems are perfect.
Both can be abused.
There will be poverty in both.
Unscrupulous people will find ways to exploit the vulnerable in either case.
But the question is, which system opens up the best path to human flourishing while offering fewer opportunities for exploitation and oppression?
And the answer, as history has always shown, is the latter.
The free market approach, which offers the most freedom, the most flourishing, And will be the most likely to lift people out of poverty.
The problem with the seize and plunder system, whether it's a governmental entity doing it, or pirates, or vikings, or a rival tribe, or whoever, is that you're relying on their benevolence to identify the parties who need the resources more and then deliver it.
You're also relying on their perfect wisdom to know who deserves what.
You are depending on them to have God's goodness and generosity and wisdom to go along with the God-like powers that they are wielding.
And that faith is always, 100% of the time, misplaced.
This is why communism and socialism and all forms of governmental redistribution systems end in misery and catastrophe.
One of the problems with progressives like Bono is that they don't respect or understand nature.
And that applies to external nature, the planet's nature, the nature comprised of trees and oceans and clouds.
It also applies to internal nature, human nature.
They respect and understand that least of all.
They don't understand that human beings are fallen creatures, and so all of our institutions will be at some level broken and unreliable, and so we can't give absolute power to any institution.
The institutions, they can't carry the weight of that sort of trust and faith.
They also don't understand tendencies and trends and the ways in which historical trends can and should guide our expectations of the future.
The left just doesn't understand this.
It's why they keep trying to, you know, get socialism going again and again, because no matter how much misery it accounted for in the past, it's also why, on the individual level, they think that we ought to continue releasing violent criminals back into our communities.
Maybe they've changed.
Maybe they've been reformed, they cry.
Yeah, maybe.
But almost certainly not.
Anything is possible.
But we have to make policies and decisions based on what is probable, not what is possible.
It's possible that you could jump off of a 100-story building and survive.
I mean, it's possible, technically.
It's not impossible.
It is possible.
But it's certainly not probable.
The probability is low enough that it's worth taking the elevator, even if that's a little bit slower.
As for economic systems, a common citizen advocating for governmental control is like jumping out of that window and hoping that you're the one guy who has a positive experience with it.
On the other hand, for the powerful, for the elite, socialism is not a plunge at all.
It's an elevation to even greater heights, enjoyed at the expense of all those peons still lingering at ground level, and who will soon end up lower even than that.
These are all points quite obvious to me and to most of you.
They were not obvious to Bono until now.
I'm glad that he finally got it right.
Sort of got it right, anyway.
But unfortunately, for being late to the party, I must still say that he and his music are cancelled.
Mostly it's just his music, though, to be honest.
That's cancelled.
Alright, that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, hope to see you there.
