Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, AI pornography is spreading like wildfire on the internet. What are the dangers of this technology and where does this all lead? we'll discuss. Also, a strange object is hovering in our skies. It's not aliens (or so they claim) but a Chinese spy balloon. So why hasn't the Biden administration shot it down by now? AOC puts on her most over the top acting performance yet. NBC News publishes another lengthy hit piece on me. An alleged conservative publication suggests that we should find a "middle ground" in the war over gender ideology. But does any middle ground exist? In our Daily Cancellation we tackle the subject of no fault divorce.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Use code DONOTCOMPLY to get 40% off annual DailyWire+ membership plans and watch the brand new series, Master’s Program with Dennis Prager: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Get 40% off Jeremy’s Razors subscriptions at www.jeremysrazors.com
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Jase Medical - Get a discount on your Jase Case with promo code ‘WALSH’ at https://jasemedical.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, AI pornography is spreading like wildfire on the internet.
What are the dangers of this technology and where does this all lead?
We'll discuss.
Also, a strange object is hovering in our skies.
It's not aliens, or so they claim, but a Chinese spy balloon.
So why hasn't the Biden administration shot it down by now?
AOC puts on her most over-the-top acting performance yet.
NBC News publishes yet another lengthy hit piece on me and The Daily Wire.
An alleged conservative publication suggests that we should find a middle ground in the war over gender ideology.
But does any middle ground exist?
In our daily cancellation, we tackle the subject of no-fault divorce.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
If the past couple of years have taught us anything, it's that in a crisis,
like a global pandemic or a natural disaster, even the basics can be hard to come by.
You need to be prepared for anything, and that's what my new partners at Jace Medical are all about, and they're here to help.
Jace Medical helps you get a long-term supply of prescription medication.
Their mission is to empower you to be better medically prepared.
A great way to start preparing is with the JACE case, a pack of five different courses of antibiotics
that you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses
including UTIs, respiratory infections, sinuses, skin infections, and more.
All you have to do is fill out a simple online form and in some cases jump on a quick call
with one of their board certified physicians.
And from there, you can ask your physician treatment related questions on an ongoing basis.
And so you'll have that help as well.
This is so important to do, especially if you have a bunch of kids in the house
like I do, and you never know what kinds of emergencies, even if it's not a national emergency,
you never know what kind of emergencies you'll be dealing with.
And that's why the JACE case gives me peace of mind, knowing that my family will have what we need if the worst happens.
And I want you to be prepared for anything as well.
Go to jacemedical.com, enter code WALSH at checkout for a discount on your order.
That's jacemedical.com, promo code WALSH.
Well, we truly live in a brave new world.
Well, not really brave anyway, but it is new, I guess.
And it's new in ways that threaten to make obsolete that old adage that there's nothing new under the sun.
Because in our day and age, we have managed to create some new things, I think.
Things without precedent, things without historical analog.
The problem is that nearly all of those things are Well, terrible.
Take, for example, the burgeoning industry of AI pornography.
This is porn generated by artificial intelligence.
It encompasses both deepfake porn, which is fashioned to look like some actual specific human being, and then totally artificial porn, whose images are created entirely by a machine.
There's been a lot of discussion about this subject this past week due to a controversy in the world of Twitch streamers.
This is a world that remains mostly foreign to me, and perhaps to you, but I think we can both get the gist from this write-up in Vice.
It says, quote, On Monday, Twitch streamer Brandon Ewing, who goes by Atriok online, admitted to buying and watching deepfakes from an account that makes non-consensual, sexually explicit, AI-generated videos of his colleagues in the streaming world.
In a live stream on Monday, Ewing inadvertently showed browser windows open to a website that hosts non-consensual AI-generated images.
The window showed that he was viewing images on the account of someone who specialized in making deepfakes of popular streamers.
Viewers of the stream caught the leak and screenshotted the site, then shared the site, images from it, and names of the women who were deepfaked.
At first reported by Dextero, Ewing said during his Monday stream, in a tearful, now viral apology, that he clicked an ad for deepfake porn while browsing Pornhub, That ad took him to another subscriber-only website that he said where he paid to view the images of popular female streamers.
He said that he was driven by morbid curiosity and that his watching non-consensual porn is not a pattern of behavior.
His wife, cosplayer Ariana Ewing, I don't know what any of these words mean, sat in the background of the stream and cried.
Here's some of whatever that is.
stream to like create a pattern of behavior where I really want especially women on Twitch to feel safer like I
We call booba spam cringe We don't do that there.
I've never made like a Weird, I don't know seat sniffing Joe.
I've never done anything like that.
I've never done anything like that a stream and We don't tolerate any sex behavior in the chat.
We ban it on site and And like I've done this consistently over and over and then in at 2 a.m You know, I've been watching so much I've been reading so much AI stuff.
I've been reading all this stuff about AI and deepfake music, deepfake art, and everything.
And I'm in these discords and I was... I feel so embarrassing.
But I was on Pornhub, dude.
I was on a regular as normal website and there was an ad.
There's an ad on every video for this.
So I know other people must be clicking it because it's on every video.
Now, to me, one of the real problems here is that this guy is a professional broadcaster.
This is what qualifies as professional broadcasters these days.
He has a large audience, people who sit around and watch him and listen to him, and yet he's incapable of stringing three words together without an F-bomb.
I mean, he has the rhetorical skill of a college freshman who just downed three beer bongs, and yet he has 320,000 followers on a streaming platform.
That, to me, is the issue.
Or it's an issue.
The bigger problem, of course, is the AI porn itself.
And some have made an attempt to defend this guy, claiming that, well, he isn't hurting anyone by watching deepfake porn.
But, of course, any rational and even just nominally decent person understands that using someone's image without their permission, using their face, their likeness, to create pornography is a moral abomination.
And consuming such pornography, knowing how it was created, is also morally abominable.
Yet, whether deepfakes or other forms of AI porn, the trend is becoming so prevalent so fast that internet platforms are scrambling to figure out how to handle all this.
This is just a couple weeks ago in the New York Post.
This article says, the internet group that creates pornographic images using artificial intelligence was kicked off fundraising platforms Kickstarter and Patreon after raising nearly $60,000 following complaints from social media users.
Unstable Diffusion describes itself as an online community of artists dedicated to creation and sharing of AI-generated NSFW, not suitable for word content.
The group uses open-source text-to-image generating systems that were popularized by online groups such as Stable Diffusion and Dance Diffusion.
Last year, the AI-powered technology DAL-E, which generates digital images from text descriptions, took the internet by storm.
Quote, Unstable Diffusion is a group dedicated to spreading free and expressive AI usage born out of a grassroots community effort to reject the limiting rules of corporate AI companies, the group says on its website.
AI porn has become a point of debate on Twitter as well this week where an image of four blonde women went viral because people were arguing about whether the image was AI or not.
Here's a photo.
It's a blurred photo because these women are mostly naked, but here it is.
And I think that this is AI based on the fact that the faces all look creepily the same, but the fact that we can't tell for sure.
That there's any debate about whether the women in that image actually exist is precisely what makes this so terrifying.
Because we are rapidly getting to a point, we've already reached the point, probably, where you simply cannot be sure whether an image, a voice, even a video that you watch is real or not.
Even if it features someone who you know exists, that doesn't mean that it actually is real.
This new reality, or unreality, has far-reaching implications that I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface of, but those implications are perhaps the most disturbing in this realm, in the realm of porn.
Now, some real flesh-and-blood internet prostitutes, like OnlyFans model Laura Lux, have spoken out about the possibility that the entire porn and cyberprostitution industry will soon come crashing down as the people in that field can all now be replaced by artificial intelligence.
Lux says that she's not worried about that, however, because as she tweeted, quote,
"Anyone who thinks AI-generated images of hot naked women is going to ruin the OnlyFans economy
for real-life women has a fundamental misunderstanding of what OnlyFans is.
People don't subscribe to my OnlyFans because they want to see a random naked woman.
They subscribe to my OnlyFans because they want to see me, naked, specifically based on
a parasocial connection formed by following me on other social media platforms."
Now, I'm not really, I confess, concerned about the job security of OnlyFans prostitutes.
When I mentioned the horrific implications of this technology, that's not exactly what I was talking about.
In fact, if anything, putting porn stars out of work is maybe the one single benefit of this technology, because at least it might force these women to do something productive and valuable with their lives instead.
I do think that day is coming, because despite the reassurance Ms.
Lux offers to us, but really to herself, there's a reality here, which is that she's correct that OnlyFans customers are looking for something that resembles a human connection, human affection, romance.
It's just that the porn consumer has given up on finding the genuine thing, and instead settles for its digital imitation.
That's precisely the problem for Ms.
Lux.
They've already decided to forfeit genuine human connections in favor of an image on a screen.
They choose you as the OnlyFans model because you're not real to them.
You're not human to them.
You are accessible.
You are usable, reusable.
You are an object that they can make use of and then discard until they want you again.
You are a masturbatory aid.
You are, to them, Nothing but a collection of body parts.
You're not a human being to them.
You have been dehumanized, and you are taking part in your own dehumanization.
You might as well already be a robot, which means that you could easily be replaced by a robot, and as far as the porn consumer is concerned, nothing at all would be lost.
That's the harsh truth.
And this is the fear with AI porn.
It's the same fear with regular porn, actually, only accelerated once artificial intelligence is added into the mix.
Because increasingly, people are rejecting human connection, human relationships, human romance, and all that traditionally comes with it, including marriage and family, in favor of images on a screen.
And this is dehumanizing, not just to the person on the screen, unless that person is already not human, but also dehumanizing to the consumer.
And that's also why our criticism of the porn industry cannot focus just on the fact That the porn industry is fueled by sex trafficking, for example, and that is a major problem.
It's not the only problem with porn.
Just as our criticism of AI porn cannot focus just on the fact that people are often being used in deepfakes without their consent.
That's a major problem with that technology, but it's not the only problem with it.
In both cases, we cannot neglect to acknowledge the harm that's also done to the consumer.
As the consumer, the viewer, is driven further into self-isolation, cut off from meaningful relationships, and destroying the ones that he already has, while spending his time ingesting depraved filth.
He is lessened by it, made into a smaller, less happy, less interesting, less productive, all-around less impressive and fulfilled person.
And now with AI adding fuel to the fire, the situation is only going to go from bad to worse.
Unless we do something about it.
Now let's get to our headlines.
[MUSIC]
So here's the big story people are buzzing about today.
The Washington Post.
A Chinese surveillance balloon is collecting intelligence over the continental United States right now, U.S.
officials disclosed on Thursday, acknowledging that the Pentagon has been monitoring the craft for several days and briefly considered shooting it down before concluding that doing so posed a safety risk.
The balloon is traveling at an altitude well above commercial air traffic and does not present a military or physical threat to people on the ground.
This is according to Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, who told the reporters in a hastily arranged news conference where he addressed the ongoing situation.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, continues to track the balloon's course, but officials would not specify its present whereabouts.
The striking development comes at a time of peak tension between the world powers, and just hours ahead of Secretary of State Antony Blinken's expected departure to Beijing, where he's to hold a series of long-scheduled meetings with senior Chinese officials.
Maybe he'll at least bring this up to them.
Hey, folks, would you mind not putting spy balloons right over our country?
Would you mind not having spy balloons right in our airspace?
I mean, it is incredibly pathetic that, well, there's a couple things.
First of all, there's no reason to believe anything that we're told about this story, okay?
There's no reason to believe anything we're told about anything these days from The administration or the corporate media, but especially in a story like this where there's some kind of strange thing hovering in the sky and they tell us that it's a Chinese spy blow.
Maybe it is, but there's no reason especially to believe that.
Assuming that it's a Chinese spy blow, well then that does raise the question of why wasn't this thing shot down immediately?
I was just looking, someone had a map showing the alleged trajectory of this balloon, and it was floating over Alaska before it made it down into the continental United States and then over Montana.
You're telling me you couldn't shoot it down over Alaska without worrying about casualties on the ground?
Because that's the excuse they're giving us.
Well, if we shoot it down, then you'll have a debris field and people might get hurt.
You're talking, at some point from Alaska to Montana, You could not have selected a time when it was above an area that's not heavily populated.
Most of it, the entire state of Alaska and all the way down to Montana, along that entire path, you're probably not going to hit any densely populated areas at all.
Montana itself is not especially densely populated.
And they're telling us that they can't shoot it down.
It is just the perfect image of this ineffectual, impotent administration that there is, according to them, a spy vehicle hovering above our country.
And we're just sitting there.
It's like, well, we don't know what to do about it.
It's a balloon.
It's not like it's going so fast that we can't.
It's a balloon.
It's just sitting there.
And we have the entire federal government sitting around debating, what should we do about this thing?
I don't know.
Maybe we should shoot it down.
Is it too late to shoot it down?
And I'll tell you the other thing that annoys me about this story, okay, is that this is a story about a mysterious object floating in the sky.
And so far as I can tell, nobody has even brought up the possibility that it might be aliens.
No one's even talking about that.
Okay, it's a story about an unidentified craft hovering in the sky, and I'm looking at all the buzz about it on social media, and there are no conspiracy theories involving alien technology involved in this discussion.
Is this who we've become as a society?
I don't even recognize us anymore.
So if no one else is going to bring up that possibility, then I will at least.
That's the idea.
Maybe it's aliens.
Maybe that's why they don't shoot it down.
Why would aliens be flying around in a balloon?
How will they even get here in a balloon?
I mean, I don't have answers to those questions, but they are questions.
And they're valid ones.
Now, for the other latest drama in D.C.
that nobody outside D.C.
actually cares about, Ilhan Omar was booted from the Foreign Affairs Committee and The reason that she was booted from the committee, and it's just like Eric Swalwell was kicked off of his committee because he slept with a Chinese spy, and there's been a few other Democrats that have lost their committee assignments, and this has been a big story in the D.C.
media.
Once again, nobody outside of that bubble cares at all.
But the reason that we're given for her being ousted from the Foreign Affairs Committee is that she has made anti-Semitic comments in the past.
And don't get me wrong, that's a fine reason to kick her off the committee, but I'd prefer if they kicked her off because she's just sort of generally anti-American and shows no loyalty to or love for the country that took her in and gave her a life and made her successful and all of that.
She came here as a refugee.
We brought her in, took her in, and she has shown no gratitude at all.
And is bitter and resentful to the country that saved her life.
So I would like to kick her off for that reason.
Whatever the reason is, it's fine.
But to me, that's the reason.
AOC feels differently, though.
She's very upset that her friend Ilhan Omar lost the committee assignment.
She wants the rest of us to be upset about it.
And here she is doing her best black preacher impression on the House floor as she discusses this.
Watch.
Don't tell me that this is about a condemnation of anti-Semitic remarks when you have a member of the Republican caucus who has talked about Jewish space lasers and an entire amount of tropes and also elevated her to some of the highest committee assignments in this body.
This is about targeting women of color in the United States of America.
Don't tell me because I didn't get a single apology when my life was threatened.
Thank you.
You have to understand, these are all performers, okay?
She's an AOC, obviously, as a performer.
I've seen some people describe her as a theater kid, you know, in high school.
And that is what she is.
Congress is full of people like this, who are simply performers.
And I know you might say that that's always been the case with politics.
Politics has always attracted performers.
It's always attracted people who were too ugly to be actors.
And so they end up becoming They end up becoming politicians.
And I think that's a pretty good theory for why people end up becoming politicians, many of them anyway.
Because really what they want to do is they want to be actors and they want to be in Hollywood, but they're too ugly for that and so they end up doing this.
And that's true and to a certain extent that's always been the case in politics even before Hollywood and movies existed.
But the difference now is that there is the opportunity to perform all the time because of 24-hour cable news, because of the internet and social media.
And they're always going for that viral moment.
That's what she was doing right there, waving her hand around, doing this whole, all the theatrics and everything.
And she knows that she can do that.
And anytime she does it, it can go viral online, which it did.
So while politics has always attracted these empty performer types, The problem is now that they can perform all the time.
The cameras are always on them, 24-7, and so there's always this invitation to perform.
And then you end up with people like...
AOC.
Here's an article in NBC News.
I found myself, in fact, my own picture in one of the top headlines in NBC News yesterday, but not for anything good.
Not because they wanted to congratulate me or say, hey, nice job or, I don't know, wish me well with the new babies or anything like that.
Instead, it's this.
Here's the headline.
How Tennessee Axed Millions in HIV Funds Amid Scrutiny from Far-Right Provocateurs.
And the article goes on.
Tennessee's recent decision to reject over $8 million in federal funds to combat HIV was motivated, at least in part, by right-wing provocateurs stoking anti-LGBTQ sentiment, according to four sources within the state health department.
The move by Republican Governor Bill Lee will hamstring, if not cripple, efforts to combat one of the country's most poorly controlled epidemics of the virus, HIV advocates say.
The announcement followed a political crisis in Tennessee that began in September, when conservative media personalities including Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro launched attacks on Vanderbilt University Medical Center over its care of transgender minors, which they alleged was barbaric.
In October, the pressure wound its way to the unit that combats HIV.
Uh, sexually transmitted infections and viral hepatitis at the Tennessee Health Department on October 21st.
Fourth, the unit's director, Dr. Pamela Talley, told employees that because of the social media firestorm over Vanderbilt, information about the Tennessee Transgender Task Force and other trans resources had been scrubbed from the department's website.
A leading voice in the right's opposition to the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, Matt Walsh, a columnist from the conservative media outlet Daily Wire, published a series of widely read tweets on September 20th targeting Vanderbilt University Medical Center's treatment of minors at its transgender health clinic.
Quote, they now castrate, sterilize, and mutilate minors as well as adults, Walsh said.
The next day, Walsh appeared on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show to publicize his investigation, and Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator who co-founded Daily Wire, further amplified Walsh's attacks on Vanderbilt on his YouTube channel and podcast, decrying the, quote, nonsense garbage that a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy.
Now, I'm reading through this whole thing, and they used my picture, again, at the top of the article, and on their homepage, it was right there, Tennessee getting rid of HIV funds, and then it's a picture of me.
It's actually a pretty good picture, though.
I'll give them that.
I appreciate that much, at least.
But then the interesting thing, of course, is that I have nothing to do with this HIV funds thing.
So this is a story about HIV funds being taken away, I guess, and they make me the centerpiece of this story, and they put my picture there.
The first I heard about this is in the article.
So the first I heard about me apparently being involved in pulling HIV funds was in the article about it, which is always a strange thing.
It's a strange day when you find out on NBC that you were involved in a conspiracy to deprive people of HIV treatment, because I had no idea that I had done that, because I didn't.
But at least they acknowledge my work against child mutilation, and that's really what this is about, obviously.
What they're actually upset about, and the guy, I'm trying to remember his name, I don't have the article pulled up right in front of me.
Benjamin Ryan's his name.
Benjamin Ryan, he's obsessed, he's writing articles about me all the time, he's constantly tweeting things and everything, and he's very, very upset that myself and The Daily Wire, that we're engaged in this campaign to protect children from being mutilated, he's really upset about that, but he knows that he can't He can't engage with us on that issue directly, because he'll lose.
What he's not going to attempt to do, what none of these people will actually attempt to do, is stand up and say, yes, I think it is a good idea, it is the right thing to chop the breasts off of a 15-year-old, of a physically healthy 15-year-old girl.
I think that's a good idea, and here, I will tell you why.
None of these people will do that, because they know they can't.
At some level, and not even that deep down, they know that this is a horrifying, grotesque practice, and that there's no way for them to defend it without sounding like absolute lunatics.
And so instead, they constantly look for workarounds, they look for indirect ways, and usually it's There are going to be stories about how these reports that we're putting out and the work that we're doing is causing death threats and bomb threats and putting people's lives at risk.
And you notice that even in those articles, even if it were true that we were responsible for saying things that were encouraging bomb threats and death threats, which we aren't, but even if that was the case, Well, you still haven't explained how we're wrong about what we're saying because they can't explain it.
And this is probably the most desperate attempt of all as he goes, you know, for this really desperate workaround where he's trying to tie this all into HIV funds and whatever else.
On a similar topic here, this is the bulwark Just put out this article with this headline.
Trump's escalation in the gender war, even as the former president tries to energize his tired campaign by pushing on trans issues, is a window opening for a moderate approach.
This is something you can always count on alleged conservatives, especially the ones that write for the bulwark, to come along and start talking about, well, we need a more moderate approach, especially When the right is winning, okay, and we're being effective, and we're achieving actual wins on the battlefield, we're putting points on the scoreboard.
That's when we can always count on people from The Bulwark and other similar publications to come along and say, let's dial it back a little bit.
This is too effective.
You're winning a little bit too much.
Let's dial it back.
Find a moderate approach.
Let's find a moderate approach between mutilating children and not mutilating them.
I'm sure there's middle ground we can agree on.
So this is an article from Giselle Donnelly.
I'll read a little bit of it.
It says, two months into the lackluster start of his 2024 presidential bid, Donald Trump rolled out the most reliable weapon in the MAGA arsenal, a full-scale attack on transgender Americans and the medical and therapeutic communities that care for them.
In a three-and-a-half-minute video screed, which we played some of it on the show yesterday, first posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced an onslaught of gender war measures going far beyond the questions raised in recent years about bathroom use, trans participation in women's sports, or the prescription of puberty blockers or hormones for adolescents.
On day one, vowed Trump, I will revoke Joe Biden's policies on so-called gender-affirming care.
Ridiculous.
On the right, gender-affirming care has become synonymous with premature prescriptions of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries.
In reality, it is the common language phrase that marks a kinder, gentler approach to what is now known as gender dysphoria, as opposed to previous treatments for gender identity disorder.
Trump announced that he would ask Congress to pass legislation that recognizes only two genders, male and female, that they're assigned at birth.
He vowed that he would sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex or gender transition at any age, and to ask Congress to outlaw the use of federal funds to pay for transition procedures.
By the way, just a sidebar here, a couple things.
Good and bad, from what Trump said.
Bad part?
And I know this seems like splitting hairs.
I think, yes, we want Congress to recognize, we want the government at every level to recognize the reality of male and female, that they're only two sexes.
We need this to be officially recognized now.
We shouldn't need to officially recognize it.
It shouldn't be an issue, but it is.
And so, yes, that's what we want.
But we don't want Congress or any other government body To recognize sex, quote, assigned at birth.
That is certainly not the language we want.
Because sex is—when you say assigned at birth, you are already agreeing with the ideologues, because you are agreeing that sex is the kind of thing that can be assigned, and that this assignment happens sometime after the conception of the person.
In the womb.
No, sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed at birth, it is noted at birth, it is present at birth, whatever you want to say, although it's present before birth too.
But on the positive side, and this is something that other people have noted, and on the left they note it with great alarm, is that when Trump is talking about this, he is not only referring to the trans agenda as it targets kids.
He's also referring to, he's referring to the entire thing.
I mean, he's referring to transgenderism as a concept, which is exactly what we need to be doing.
And yes, ultimately, we need to be protecting both children and adults from this, from these barbaric procedures.
It makes sense to, as we're doing, to start with protecting kids.
They need our protection the most, but I don't think it should end there.
As I've always said, it should not be legal for doctors to do this to anyone.
I don't care how old you are.
If somebody is confused about their identity, a doctor saying, okay, well, we'll chop your penis off.
We'll chop your breasts off.
We'll start chopping parts of your body off until you feel better about yourself.
That is barbaric and insane and abusive no matter how old the person is.
It doesn't magically become ethical for the doctor because the person's over the age of 18.
So I think Trump is noting that, which is good.
Anyway, back to the Bulwark article.
It says, whether this ploy is enough to help revitalize Trump's presidential effort is difficult to assess.
The Republican bench is deep with aggressive culture warriors and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump's top rival, has until now dominated the lineup.
But now that Trump has spoken, what MAGA candidate will want to be seen to be more moderate than he on transgender issues?
And I'm just scrolling along here to get to the end, because what I'm trying to figure out, what's allegedly being pitched here is a moderate position Is that we don't want the extremes of one side or the extremes of the other.
Well, what is the moderate position exactly?
To the degree that this sort of radicalism has become the face of the movement for preserving citizenship liberties for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans Americans, it's hardly a wonder that it provokes an ugly reaction.
Okay, so now this person's talking about the extremism on the other side, and that's no good.
But then I scroll along, I get to the bottom, When I began to transition, it was not that long ago.
Oh, this person is trans, so that's no surprise.
It seemed possible to hope that at some point that would not be the thing that defined me.
I wanted re-assimilation into mainstream society, not revolution against it.
I thought that the trans rights movement would take the path charted by the marriage equality movement.
The road to normality is now blocked from both left and right, but perhaps a middle way can be cleared.
Okay, so this whole article is written, it's in the bulwark, and you read it, It's proposing a middle way, a compromised position, and you read the entire thing and you get to the end and it never even stipulates what the moderate approach is.
It never suggests what is the moderate position.
You've got one side that says gender is fluid, there are a million of them, and there's countless numbers of them.
Biological sex is essentially imaginary.
There is no objective reality when it comes to sex.
And if a 12-year-old child's boy says that he's a girl, then he should be chemically castrated.
That's what one side says.
Then you've got the other side saying, no, absolutely not, to all of that.
And then you've got this person saying, well, what about in the middle?
Okay, what is the middle between those two positions?
And the reason why they never stipulate the middle ground is because there isn't one.
It doesn't exist.
Okay, you cannot have a middle ground between Horrific falsehoods on one side from the gender ideology crowd and the truth on the other side.
Because that's all you're getting from the other side.
It's just the truth.
There are only males and females.
Sex is binary.
You shouldn't mutilate kids.
You shouldn't mutilate anyone.
This is our position and it is scientifically true.
It's morally true.
So we've got falsehood and truth.
Any kind of middle ground.
Here's why there's no middle ground.
Because if you stray even one inch from the truth and towards the falsehood, Well, now it's a falsehood.
Now we're just, like, degrees—there's the truth, and then there's the falsehood.
It's not a spectrum.
It's not like there's a spectrum where you go along and, like, suddenly the falsehood kind of blends with the truth, and right there in the middle is the sweet, lukewarm spot.
No, it's—there are many different, like, versions of falsehoods, some more extreme than others, and then there's the truth.
And if you venture away from the truth, then you are in the realm of falsehood.
That's not a compromise, that is a surrender.
And it's a surrender of something that we absolutely cannot surrender.
Right.
This is maybe Biden's finest moment.
We've heard a lot of alleged gaffes from Biden, but this one I really appreciated.
Listen.
More than half the women in my cabinet, more than half the people in my cabinet, more than half the women in my administration are women.
What I love about that is that he does correct himself, but then he goes back to the wrong way.
Because he says more than half the women, I mean more than half the people, no more than half the women are women.
So he caught himself, but then he went back to the wrong way of saying it.
More than half the women in his administration are women.
Which people assume that that's a gaffe and he's just stumbling over his words because he's senile, and of course that's usually the case.
But in this administration, there may be some reality to that.
Half of the women in the administration actually are women.
The other half of the women are men, I guess is what he's trying to say.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
As members of the SBG, you're well acquainted with my affinity for pop culture and old
school hip hop.
You know about this.
As well as the undeniable street cred that I've garnered through my life as an accomplished gang leader.
As a true rap mogul, all I could ever ask is to make my greatest influences and hip-hop role models Pooh Shiesty and Spottum Gottum And Takashi69, proud.
That being said, I'm proud to announce the newest Sweet Baby album t-shirt, which we unveiled yesterday, and it is the Notorious S.B.G.
This latest edition to my Swag Shack is available now at dailywire.com slash shop, and we just keep putting, I mean, there are so many great things on the shop.
If you haven't been to Swag Shack recently, this shirt is great.
But we have so many other great things there, and you can celebrate my long-established roots in the hip-hop world with yet another instant classic.
If we sell enough of these, it's not completely out of the question.
They want me to again promise that I'm going to freestyle rap for you if we sell enough of these, and I will not make that promise.
I'm not going to even talk about that, because then my life for the next six months will be people harassing me.
Hey, Matt, when are you going to do the freestyle rap for us?
So I won't do that, but if you buy a lot of these shirts, I will give you a hearty thank you.
If you buy a lot of them.
If you don't, you can go to hell.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop to get your notorious SBG t-shirt today.
Well, for our comment section today, we must unfortunately once again move away from responding to comments from the SBG so that I can instead defend the validity and dignity and honor of the SBG itself.
and especially of myself, your trusted cult leader. As you know, Candace Owens, my colleague
and apparent sworn enemy at the Daily Wire, has launched a campaign to overtake the Sweet Baby
Gang. She wants to come up with her own gang, all with the intention of supplanting the SBG as the
Daily Wire's preeminent and most prestigious cult.
And she's even solicited suggestions for gang names, but all the suggestions were corny as hell and didn't come close to capturing the spontaneous, poetic charm of the Sweet Baby Gang.
So, so far this campaign is off to a rather pitiful start, but now she's taken it a step further and she's even now enlisted the help of AI voice generating software.
Speaking of AI stuff, which has, this has now turned into like an information war, I guess.
And this is from her show.
You know, Matt Walsh, my colleague, my non-friend, my arch-nemesis, Matt Walsh, you know, he's got that sweet baby gang.
And I would like to have the sweet baby gang.
And guess what, guys?
Matt Walsh agrees that it's mine.
Let's hear Matt Walsh maybe not, but definitely do say that the sweet baby gang is mine.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I'll be telling you why I'm formally stepping down as the leader of the Sweet Baby Gang.
I've searched long and hard for a successor, and have finally found one.
She is the host of my favorite podcast ever, and has the best taste in bottled water.
First, I have to admit that I was wrong.
Dasani is absolute trash.
Secondly, I am announcing that I am formally handing control of the Sweet Baby Gang to my dear friend Candace Owens.
I mean, is that not incredible and terrifying, but also amazing that Matt Walsh has renounced himself as the leader of the Sweet Baby Gang and that it's actually mine?
He admits that I'm his dear friend and also admits that I'm right about how disgusting the sani water is.
All that actually happened, or did it happen?
Did he actually say that?
Was that from Matt Walsh's podcast?
Okay.
First, I am glad to find out that for Candace Owens, her greatest dream in her career is to be my successor.
So I do appreciate that.
Second, I never said that Dasani water is good bottled water.
I said that it's just, it's bottled water and that's all it is.
And it tastes like every other bottle of water.
And I proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in a blind taste test that we did on her show, which I won.
Third, I might not be as concerned about AI technology now as I was at the beginning of the show, because that did not impress me at all.
That didn't sound like me in the slightest bit.
Wasn't even slightly convincing.
I mean, that robot could never capture the soul and gravity of my voice.
I have the voice, I've been told, of like an ill-tempered grizzly bear who smokes too many cigarettes.
And I take that as a compliment.
I don't know if it's intended that way.
That's how I take it.
And the AI didn't come close to that.
Also, by the way, she began that segment By announcing ahead of time that the clip was made using AI, which kind of defeats the purpose of the bit when you tell people that that's what it is.
It's like calling somebody up on a prank call.
And when they pick up, you say, Hi, I'm about to prank you.
Get ready for this prank.
This is a prank we're about to do.
And here it goes.
So a little bit of a concept problem there.
Once again, I feel that the Sweet Baby Gang is secure and safe and we have nothing to worry about.
Jeremy's Razors is offering a great deal that ends at midnight tonight.
40% off all Razors.
Why the discount?
Well, I'm glad you asked.
A year ago, when Joe Biden tried to force a vaccine mandate upon private employers and some 85 million Americans, The Daily Wire told him where to stick it.
We sued the federal government and we won.
After a 6-3 ruling in our favor at the Supreme Court, the mandate was dead.
Together, we kicked the government's ass.
So, on the first anniversary of this tremendous victory for all Americans, The Daily Wire CEO and God King Jeremy Boren has issued a special decree on the Razors that bear his name 40% off of all razors.
That means you can get a Precision 5 razor with flip-back trimmer, shave cream, post-shave balm, extra blades, and a handy travel case for just $35.99, which is a savings of $24.
The Biden administration and its totalitarian cronies were cut down, and now we rejoice by drinking their tears, enjoying our freedom, and looking damn good while doing it.
Now is your last chance to get 40% off all Jeremy's Razors by going to Jeremy'sRazors.com today.
That's Jeremy'sRazors.com today.
Now, let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, if you've been listening to the show over the past month or so, you know that we have returned frequently to a discussion about the situation that young men face in our culture, and in particular, as it relates to marriage.
And you know, not only if you've been listening to this past week, but if you listen really at any point, That I'm a major advocate of marriage, that I especially encourage young men and women to embrace marriage and family life.
But there's been a significant cultural shift away from marriage in recent years with an increasing number of young people, men and women, giving up on the institution altogether.
And for men, this shift has become its own movement with its own name.
Men go their own way, is what it's called, and the logic behind the movement is that our culture is hopelessly corrupted, and the system is hopelessly rigged against men, and so that they're left with no choice but to give up on the system, give up on marriage, give up on the family, and strike out on their own, focusing instead on their own independence and sovereignty.
As I've argued, I understand the logic.
I sympathize with those who are isolated and lonely and feel that this is the only path available to them.
But I don't think that surrender is the right response.
A man cannot give up on what he was made to do and to be.
To truly go your own way, alone and isolated, is to give up on your duty, your legacy, your ancestors, your bloodline, your civilization, your happiness.
The movie Into the Wild tells the story of a man, Christopher McCandless, who went his own way to the extreme.
You know, burned his social security card, left his family, hiked into the Alaskan wilderness, and he died there alone.
And as he was dying, he wrote in the margins of a book the words, happiness is only real when shared.
This is one of the most essential truths of human nature.
Most of us are meant to share our happiness with others.
And for most of us, that's going to be with a spouse and children.
All that said, there are systemic problems with the way that we approach and govern marriages in our country.
And it is important that we deal with and address those problems, which we usually don't.
This is one of the central points that a great many men have made to me as they've given feedback on the topics we've discussed on the show in recent weeks.
I've read many messages like this one, just choosing this one at random.
It says, Dear Matt, I absolutely agree with your message about the importance of marriage.
I agree that men should become fathers and care for their families.
I even generally agree with your take on Andrew Tate.
But you talk about these things while never addressing these systemic issues.
You push for marriage but pretend that no fault divorce doesn't exist.
Your message will fall on deaf ears as long as you refuse to acknowledge the whole picture.
Now, for the record, it's definitely not even close to true that I never talk about divorce or no-fault divorce.
In fact, I've been talking about it for as long as I've had a national platform to talk about these things at all.
But if I'm being teed up to talk about it again, I'm happy to oblige, which is why the cancelee for our daily cancellation today is no-fault divorce.
Now, for those who aren't familiar with the concept, no-fault divorce law is first adopted by California, of course, and then by every other state in some version Allow couples to break up their marriage without any specific cause or reason.
They don't need to prove that anybody was at fault.
They simply tell the court that they don't want to be married, and that's it.
Now, in some states, no-fault divorce is the only choice.
An at-fault divorce isn't an available option in these states.
In the rest of the states, no-fault is an option that can be chosen, among other options.
But here's perhaps the most important detail.
In most situations, It only takes one spouse to file for no-fault divorce.
This means that one spouse can break the marriage contract without citing any reason except irreconcilable differences, even if the other spouse doesn't consent.
This is where the gender disparity comes into play.
The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women.
Studies have also shown that women are more likely to get divorced after getting promoted at work, achieving greater financial success, That's what the, as their financial situation improves, the likelihood of divorce becomes even more significant.
Meanwhile, women are far more likely to make it out well in the divorce, receiving alimony, other forms of quote-unquote spousal support.
Now, in theory, gender is not supposed to factor into who gets alimony or how much they receive, but in reality it almost always does.
Even the New York Times has acknowledged this.
An article last year remarking on how rare it is for women to be forced to financially
support their ex-husbands reports this, quote, "According to a 2019 study of census data
by the Urban Institute, a non-profit research group, half of United States households are
headed by women on average."
While national statistics on alimony aren't tracked, Michael Mossberg, a New York-based lawyer and the former chairman of the American Bar Association's family law section, said that despite an increase in stay-at-home husbands, far more women than men seek and receive spousal support.
So women are more and more becoming the breadwinners in their families, and yet the family court system doesn't seem to have noticed that.
Alimony payments are still doled out like it's, you know, 1953.
What this means is that a woman, this is what can happen, a woman can marry a man, leave him for any reason she wants, even after cheating on him, and still take half the assets and be awarded with an allowance from her ex-husband in perpetuity.
It's not only outrageously unjust, but it also purposefully disincentivizes marital fidelity while incentivizing disloyalty and infidelity and divorce.
There are many reforms that should be enacted to stop the bleeding here.
The alimony system, for one thing, has to be drastically changed.
Most alimony laws were created under the assumption that most women would be housewives and they would be stay-at-home moms, and most divorces would be initiated by men who are the sole breadwinners in the family.
And in a case like that, where a man chooses to leave a wife who was staying at home to raise the kids and take care of the house, And he decides that he wants to leave.
It makes sense that he should have to pay.
She structured her entire life around the assumption that he would provide for her financially so that he, so that he could, you know, so that she can care for the children and he can go to work.
If the man decides to go shack up with his secretary or whatever, he should still have to provide the support that he promised.
But this doesn't describe All or even most divorces in modern America.
Given that, again, most divorces are initiated by women, and also most women have careers.
There's no reason why a woman with a job, who decides to leave her husband and break the marriage vows, should then be rewarded with a monthly stipend from the man that she wants nothing to do with.
I think a fairer system would require the person who destroys the marriage to pay, regardless of the gender.
And can it be difficult to decide who's at fault for destroying the marriage?
Yeah, it's difficult, but that's what needs to happen.
This is why these courts exist, to make these determinations.
And if the divorce really is a mutual decision, which, I mean, it almost never really is, but if that's what they're claiming, then neither should expect an allowance from the other, if they both have mutually decided this.
I think the reform to no-fault divorce is far simpler.
It should be reformed by simply ceasing to exist.
Marriage is much more than a contract.
It's a covenant.
But to the extent that it is also a contract, it's hard to think of any other situation in which a contract can be broken for no reason by either party without the consent of the other and entirely without cause.
You know, it's hard to think of any other contract that would work that way.
But by treating marriage this way, we have downgraded the marital contract to something less binding than, like, the agreement you have with your cell phone carrier.
We've made it into something cheap and worthless.
And that's how it's therefore treated.
When you make divorce easy, and for at least one party concerned, profitable, you get more of it.
In fact, shockingly, when you make divorce easier, And more profitable, for one sex at the expense of the other, you get a greater number of the members of that sex initiating divorces.
You don't need a crystal ball to predict an outcome like this.
People respond to incentives.
If you incentivize disloyal, selfish behavior, you get more of it.
However, if you make divorce difficult and potentially costly for everybody involved, not for one spouse, but both, then you've given couples an incentive to find another solution for their supposedly irreconcilable differences, and you've sent a message on a cultural level that the marital vow is meaningful and important, and not something that can be just discarded on a whim.
Now, no-fault divorce advocates will argue that the alternative Divorce without the no-fault option can tend to be traumatic and it could get really ugly.
But there's no way around that.
And we shouldn't look for one.
Divorce is an ugly thing, no matter what.
A promise was made, a vow was made, now it's being broken.
That's an ugly thing.
There's no way to make this ugly thing not ugly.
Besides, no-fault divorce doesn't mitigate the trauma or ugliness of divorce.
Instead, too often, it simply shifts the trauma so that one party is made to carry most of its burden.
And that is the problem.
And for that reason, and so many others, no-fault divorce is, or should be, cancelled.
And that'll do it for the show today and for the week.
