Ep. 1108 - Disney Serves Up A Heaping Pile Of White Guilt
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Disney serves up some more historically illiterate white guilt, teaching children that "slaves built this country" and that's why we should start doling out reparations. This is all completely wrong, and I'll explain why. Also, a terrifying mob of morbidly obese insurrectionists invade the Oklahoma state capitol to demand the right to mutilate and castrate children. And Tennessee moves forward with its bill to outlaw sexual performances for children -- a measure that Democrats in the state call anti-LGBT. What does that tell us? Finally, in our Daily Cancellation I am forced to cancel a right wing commentator who has found yet another totally erroneous reason to accuse me of racism.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Tune in for Daily Wire Backstage tonight at 8:15pm EST at www.dailywireplus.com
Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Valentine’s Day bundles, and order today to receive them in time for Valentine’s Day: www.jeremysrazors.com
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Zip Recruiter - Try ZipRecruiter for FREE: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/walsh
Helix Sleep - 20% OFF all mattress orders + 2 FREE Pillows.
www.HelixSleep.com/WALSH
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, Disney serves up some more historically illiterate white guilt, teaching children that, quote, slaves built this country and that's why we should start doling out reparations.
This is all completely wrong on many levels, and I'll explain why.
Also, a terrifying mob of morbidly obese insurrectionists invade the Oklahoma state capitol to demand the right to mutilate and castrate children.
And Tennessee moves forward with its bill to outlaw sexual performances for children, a measure that Democrats in the state call anti-LGBT.
What does that tell us?
Finally, in our daily cancellation, I am forced to cancel a right-wing commentator who has found yet another totally erroneous reason to accuse me of racism.
them all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
With everything going on in the world right now, you could really use a good night's sleep, I'm guessing.
That's why you need to check out Helix Mattress.
I've had my Helix for years now, and I absolutely love it.
I sleep like a baby, and that's when I'm actually able to sleep, because I have newborn twins, but when that happens, I do sleep well.
A mattress should never be a one-size-fits-all solution, because why should you have to compromise on comfort?
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress
because why would you buy a mattress made for someone else?
Go to helixsleep.com/walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz
and find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
Your mattress will come right to your door for free.
Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
So for a limited time, Helix is giving you 20% off all mattress orders
and two free pillows for our listeners.
Take advantage of this amazing offer at helixsleep.com/walsh. With Helix, better sleep starts
now.
One of the most uncontroversial pieces of marriage advice I can give
is that it's never a good idea to focus obsessively on the sins of the past.
Even though, you know, this is a common mistake that people make in romantic relationships, most people understand, intellectually at least, that it's not productive or healthy to dwell on the slights that your spouse has committed in the past or the hurts they caused you long ago.
In an argument, as soon as you utter the phrase, oh yeah, well, remember the time when you Fill in the blank.
You've likely destroyed any chance of reaching any mutual understanding or worthwhile resolution.
Once you bring ancient history into the discussion, you've stopped having a discussion and instead turned it into a game of scoring points.
Everything is clouded now by resentment and grudges.
Nothing is solved by your decision to root through the past in search of ammo to use against your spouse in the present day.
You've only created more problems.
Without doing anything to address whatever problem started the argument in the first place
Often you've taken some small dispute and turned it into a much bigger deal than it ever needed to be. So one minute
You're squabbling because your wife gave you a hard time About not using a coaster when you put your drink down on
the coffee table The next minute you're rehashing an argument dating back to 2009.
This is why it's best to move on from what has already happened and already been hashed out and allow your marriage to exist in the present moment where you both have control over the outcome.
You cannot change the past.
You only have power over the present and therefore, to some extent, the future.
Now, if this principle applies to marriages, so too does it apply to much larger groups like, say, a nation.
In fact, it applies even more to nations than to marriages, because at least the infractions committed by your spouse in the past were actually committed by your spouse, whereas the resentment that one group in a country may carry against another group in the country will often stem from sins that were not committed by anyone living today, nor against anyone living today.
I mean, it's one thing to hold someone's past sins against them, even that is often counterproductive and unjust, but it's an entirely different thing, a much worse thing, to hold someone's past sins against someone else who had nothing to do with them.
Yet this is exactly the situation that the woke race hustlers have tried desperately, and with horrifying success, to engineer.
One of the reasons they've been so successful in stirring up these resentments, keeping ancient wounds fresh and still bleeding, is that they start the resentment building process very early, making sure to preach the grievance gospel to children from a very young age.
Case in point, the latest uber-woke episode from Disney's uber-woke children's show, which is called The Proud Family.
Now, for a little bit of background, The Proud Family was originally a kid's show on the Disney Channel back in the early 2000s.
It was cancelled in 2005, and then in 2022 it became just the latest reboot that nobody needed, nobody asked for, nobody wanted.
The rebooted Proud Family, which can be found now on Disney+, promises to be louder and prouder.
And it certainly fulfills at least half of that promise.
A clip from a recent episode has gone viral over the past few days, and in it, we are treated to what we're told is a rap or a song about the sinister origins of the United States.
And here it is.
This country was built on slavery, which means slaves built this country.
Tilled this land from sea to sea to sea.
First there was rice, tobacco, sugarcane.
Then Whitney did his thing and Cotton became king.
And we were its soldiers.
Four million strong.
Fighting for America's freedoms even though we remained America's slaves.
Built this country.
The descendants of slaves continue to build it.
Slaves built this country.
And we, the descendants of slaves in America, have earned reparations for their suffering.
And continue to earn reparations every moment we spend submerged in the systemic prejudice, racism, and white supremacy that America was founded with and still has not atoned for.
Slaves built this country.
Not only field hands, but carpenters, mazes, blacksmiths, musicians, inventors built cities from Jamestown to New Orleans to Bannacott.
40 acres and a mule?
We'll take the 40 acres, keep the mule!
We made your families rich!
From the southern plantation heirs, to the northern bankers, to the New England ship owners, the founding fathers, former presidents, current senators, the Illuminati, the New World Order, slaves built this country!
Then they say Lincoln freed the slaves.
But slaves were men.
And women.
And only we can free ourselves.
Emancipation is not freedom.
Jim Crow, segregation, redlining, public schools feeding private prisons.
Where we become slaves again.
As we celebrate Juneteenth.
For the umpteenth time.
Our account is still outstanding.
Cause this country was built on slavery, which means... Slaves built this country.
And we demand our 40 acres and a mule.
Bump that!
You can keep the mule.
keep the 40. We're taking our freedom!
Just some nice wholesome children's content.
That's why I'll stick with the bluey, I think.
Okay, first of all, there's been some misinformation about the content of that clip.
People are saying that the Disney show featured an anti-American song.
Well, that is anti-American, but it's not a song.
It's literally just shrill voices chanting vacuous bumper sticker slogans without rhyme or rhythm.
Which I guess, you know, doesn't really separate it much from many other pop songs.
But, as Martin Luther King would say, we should judge woke propaganda by, not by its shrillness, but by its content.
The content here is ridiculous on multiple levels, so let's go through them.
First, and most importantly, And it is really necessary that we emphasize this.
Slaves did not build this country.
This country was built over the course of hundreds of years, beginning long before it was a country.
The building started in the 1400s when the first European explorers sailed across treacherous and uncharted seas to discover these lands.
It continued with the European settlers in the 1500s and 1600s who built a life for themselves in this unknown wilderness, facing untold threats and, for many of them, certain death.
This country was built by the colonists and the American revolutionaries.
It was built by the pioneers who expanded the country from the east, heading west, out into a hostile wilderness, occupied by warring Indian tribes.
It was built by war and conquest, by discovery, by diplomacy, by industry.
It was built and then nearly undone by a civil war that killed 620,000 men, then built up again, only to thrive once more.
The country was built by the people who made it into the world's great power in the 20th century, who won world wars and brought about peace and economic prosperity.
It was built by many people over many centuries.
And for a portion of that history, some people in some parts of the country owned slaves.
That certainly is not enough to justify the claim that the slaves built the country.
To make that claim is to erase nearly everyone who really did build the country.
It's to paper over America's actual history with your grievance-mongering nonsense.
Now, if the mere historical fact of slavery automatically means that the country was built by slavery and forever is indebted to slaves and their descendants, then of course the same must be said about every nation on the planet.
There is no race, no people, no nation anywhere in the world who does not inherit the guilt of slavery, if indeed the guilt of slavery can be inherited.
As I will never tire of pointing out, the only thing that makes America's relationship to slavery unique is how comparatively quickly we abolished it, and the lengths we went to abolish it.
Western nations were patrolling the oceans to shut down the slave trade for many years, while non-Western nations did everything in their power to continue the slave trade.
You notice something.
You notice how I didn't use the word we when talking about the people who did build the country.
A great many of the pioneers, and explorers, and inventors, and warriors, and statesmen, and leaders, etc.
who built the country were white.
I mean, most of them were white.
That's the historical reality.
It just is.
And we certainly shouldn't be ashamed of pointing that out, or let ourselves be shamed into not pointing it out, or denying it.
Yet, as a white person, I don't say we, because we would include me, and I didn't do any of those things.
I didn't come here on the Mayflower.
I wasn't on the Lewis and Clark expedition.
I didn't fight in the Civil War.
I didn't storm the beaches of Normandy.
People who looked kind of like me did, but I didn't.
So I don't take credit for their achievements or claim their accolades, just as I don't pretend to have experienced their suffering or felt their pain.
I stand at the end of this long line of triumph and sacrifice.
I am its beneficiary.
And so are you, whatever your race.
Yet in that Disney song, that's not really a song, we hear the word we being used.
And this is always the case with the race hustlers.
They talk about the long-ago sufferings of people they never met and who they missed meeting by a century and a half, and they say, we and us.
But no, it's not a we or an us situation because you were not enslaved.
That didn't happen to you.
It just didn't.
It may have happened to your ancestors, but if you go back a little further, you may just as well find that your ancestors did it to others.
See, this is the problem of trying to claim your entire lineage as if it all happened to you, is that you cannot isolate this one particular moment in your ancestry and take direct ownership of it, speaking about it as if you were there, without owning all of the rest of your ancestral history.
A history that is guaranteed to include brutality and impression inflicted on others by your ancestors because literally everyone's ancestors are guilty of that.
Because that is the story of the human race.
Not the white race.
The human race.
So, alternatively, you can choose to stand in the present.
On your own two feet.
Appropriating neither your ancestors' achievements, nor their sufferings, nor their sins.
You can be your own person, located in this moment of time, equipped with the freedom and luxury given to you by those who died long before you were born.
It's your choice, really.
You've got two paths.
And one gives you a chance at living a happy and successful life, The other keeps you wallowing pathetically in self-pity, obsessing over resentments that don't belong to you.
It's up to you.
Now let's get to our headlines.
You need to be prepared for anything.
That's why my new partners at Jace Medical are so important, and they are here to help.
Jace Medical's mission is to empower you to be more prepared, better medically prepared, especially even in the worst case scenario.
It's a great way to start.
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 many 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. From there you can ask your
physician treatment related questions on an ongoing basis.
Look, with six kids it's always good to be prepared for anything because, look, I never
know what will happen.
Having the Jace case on hand makes it easy for my family to be prepared for what light throws our way.
What you gotta do is go to jacemedical.com, enter code WALSH to check out for a discount on your order.
That's jacemedical.com, promo code WALSH.
Okay, so the post-millennial reports, trans activists gathered in the Oklahoma's capital on Monday to protest legislation that would prohibit the sterilization and mutilation of children.
Trans lives matter, they chanted.
The legislative session began in the state on Monday and lawmakers are expected to consider the Millstone Act, which would prohibit Oklahoma doctors from providing gender transition procedures or referral services relating to such procedures to anyone under the age of 26.
Quote, the bill would further authorize the state's Attorney General to enforce the act and those found guilty of violating it would be guilty of a felony and subject to license revocation, says a release from State Senator David Bullard.
Child abuse is a felony in our state and mutilating a young person's genitalia should be viewed no differently.
The Millstone Act will hold those who perform child mutilation accountable by making such activity a felony.
Those guilty of such a heinous crime will be both legally and financially liable, according to Bullard.
And 25 is a later cutoff than most bills in other states that are doing something similar.
But I think 25 makes a lot of sense for reasons that we've talked about, that your brain is not fully developed, your prefrontal cortex isn't really fully online, so to speak, until the age of 25.
Which means that you don't fully have your capacities of discernment, long-term decision making.
All those things haven't been fully developed yet.
And so it makes sense that we wouldn't allow people to cosmetically mutilate their bodies to this extreme extent before their brains have been fully developed.
So I think this is a great bill.
And I also like that, now I don't, it's not in here so I'm not sure exactly why they call it the Millstone Act.
But if that is a reference to the millstone that Jesus says, rather than harming a child, you'd be better with a millstone around your neck, drowning and thrown into the sea.
If it's a reference to that millstone, then that's amazing.
That's awesome.
It's my favorite name for a bill probably ever.
During a state of state address governor Kevin Stitt said send me a bill that bans all gender transition surgeries
and hormone therapies on minors in the state of Oklahoma
Still previously signed bills that ban biological males from competing in women's sports and require sex segregated
bathrooms and schools to remain sex segregated regardless of a student's state
stated gender identity So this is the bill that they're considering they're gearing
up to pass and The trans activists in the state and apparently there are
some trans activists in Oklahoma relatively sizable amount of them.
And as you'll see, when I say sizable, I mean that in a couple different ways.
But they stormed the Capitol last night.
They weren't just outside.
They went into the building.
And we have a couple of clips of that.
Let's pull these up.
This is an insurrection.
February 6th is when this happened.
A day that will live in infamy.
We will all remember February 6th.
From here forward, every February 6th, we should solemnly recall where we were when
we heard about this insurrection. We are Oklahoma.
Okay.
This is worse than 9-11.
This is Pearl Harbor and 9-11 combined.
What I would like to see... Okay, can you pause it there?
Pause it real quick.
There we go.
Just keep that up.
Keep that...
There's a gang behind me as I discuss a few points here.
Okay, so first of all, everybody you see in this clip, they should all be arrested and thrown in federal prison because that's what we do with insurrectionists, right?
That's what we're told.
People that invade the Capitol, angry mobs, we throw them in prison and we do it without trial.
They don't get any lawyers, throw them in solitary confinement.
That's what we should do, because that's what we're told.
That's supposed to be the reaction to this sort of thing.
Only if you're gonna arrest them, you know, you need a lot of buses to handle all these people, because there's a lot of them.
There are a lot of them as a group, and as individuals, there's also a lot of them.
Because it is very interesting to me that these, you know, I mean, the average BMI, I think, in this group is probably hovering in the 40 to 50 range.
But, as you can see, especially with the other shot where it shows the whole crowd, in spite of that fact, they are all being very healthy, or many of them are being healthy to make sure they have masks on.
So, morbidly obese, but they're wearing their masks anyway for the insurrection.
And that is actually, you know, I pointed this out on Twitter, that, you know, this group here is, I mean, it's just, it's noticeable that, like, everyone in the crowd is overweight.
That's a noticeable fact, and I pointed that out, and some people were offended and said, well, that's beneath you, Matt.
That's beneath you.
How dare you make that observation?
That's juvenile.
Well, a couple things about that.
First of all, even if I was simply just insulting them and degrading them just for the sake of it, if that was my point, to insult these people, well, they would deserve it.
I mean, there is nothing that I could say about these people that would be over the line.
Because what are they doing?
They are storming the Capitol to demand the right to mutilate and castrate and sterilize children.
That's what they're doing.
Okay, these are child mutilating freaks and ghouls and goblins.
And so there is no insult that I could throw at them that would be remotely inappropriate.
These people are evil to their core, and that's what I feel as though there are many people out there who still don't fully understand this.
Even the conservatives who understand that we shouldn't be castrating children.
I think that there's still this desire to see these people as, well, they're wrong, but they're well-intentioned, they're just confused, and they have a different point of view, and that's all.
This is not a different point of view sort of situation.
There are plenty of issues where we can disagree and a well-intentioned and good person could fall on either side of it.
That's the case for many of the issues, including the kind of issues that we argue about all the time in the country.
You could be a well-intentioned and basically decent person and fall on either side of the issue.
Because well-intentioned and decent people can be wrong about stuff.
But I'm sorry, you cannot be well-intentioned and decent.
While defending the castration, mutilation, and butchery of children.
That doesn't exist.
The physical and sexual abuse of children, because that's what all this is.
And so these are terrible, awful people.
And we should mock them, and deride them, and heap total, utter contempt on them.
And the message should be very clear that the position they are holding is not acceptable.
It is not an acceptable position in civilized society.
You can hold the position.
We can't stop you.
You're allowed to think and believe whatever you want.
But it's not acceptable.
It's not tolerable.
We're not going to tolerate it.
It's not valid.
There's no validity to it.
And if you hold that position and you say it out loud, you have revealed something about your, you know, the core of who you are.
You have revealed that at your core you are an absolute monster.
And that's how you should be treated.
That's what the left does to us.
Okay?
And it's a very effective tactic, actually.
Like, no matter what we say, they treat us as monsters.
No matter what we say.
But for them, it's performance.
It's overcompensation.
Because they don't really have an argument, so instead they fall back on that.
The difference here is that this actually is monstrous.
And so we should say that and be clear about it.
I have no respect for any of these people.
And yes, they are fat, hideous, ugly people, inside and out.
The other thing, too, is that you do notice this about left-wing activists.
I mean, they are just ugly.
I mean, they are hideous people.
They really are.
And that's a phenomenon that I think is worth talking about.
It's an interesting phenomenon, at the very least.
What I think is the ugliness in their souls seeps out of them and warps their physical exterior.
And these are also self-loathing people.
You know, they hate the world, they hate themselves, they hate humanity, they hate children, they hate everything.
And so they don't take care of themselves, as you can clearly see here.
And if it were up to me, I really would arrest them all, because fair is fair.
I guarantee every single person in this picture, every single one, in that crowd, Thinks that, you know, the January 6th quote insurrectionists ought to have been arrested as they were rounded up and thrown in prison.
Every single one of them believes that.
And so the same shit thing should happen to them, and if it was up to me, that's exactly what I would do.
Hold them to their own standards.
If you can't live by your own standards, then that should tell you something.
Alright.
Moving over to Tennessee.
Well, we've got the bill here in Tennessee, which also is going to ban the castration and mutilation of children.
There's another bill that's making its way through the process right now to become law, and that is a bill to criminalize, well, what we're being told is that it criminalizes drag shows or drag shows for children, which it does, but that's not What the bill is solely focused on, what the bill actually does is it criminalizes sexual performances for children of any variety.
Okay, so you can't hold any kind of sexual performance and involve children in it.
Now, on the left and the Democrats in Tennessee, they have taken that to be an attack on drag in particular, which like, what does that tell you?
When you say, you know what, we should ban sexual performances for children, and they immediately respond by saying, what, so you think that drag should be banned?
Oh, so you're admitting that this is a sexual performance for children, huh?
Anyway, WKRN here locally has a report on that.
Let's watch that.
In the Capitol Newsroom now, Tennessee lawmakers discussed Senate Bill 3 today, also known
as the bill to potentially criminalize drag shows.
The bill went before two different committees, including the criminal justice subcommittee.
News 2's Chris O'Brien brings us inside.
The ayes prevail.
If you wish to be recorded as a no, please see the clerk.
In front of a packed house, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted to advance a bill to potentially criminalize certain drag shows.
And we are fighting against a group of folks who are set on hate, but really have no understanding of what this looks like in theory and in practice.
Multiple people testified against the bill, saying it unfairly reprimands the LGBTQ community.
Last week I went to a drag show and I was forced to walk past a mob of masked men with guns and swastikas to get into that drag show.
That didn't happen, so that's a lie.
That didn't happen.
A group with swastikas and guns?
Do we have a video of that?
Any pictures of that?
A whole group of Nazis with swastikas outside the drag show?
I mean, if there were any swastikas, which I highly doubt that actually happened, it's almost certainly that that's going to be the left that has them.
But, you know, that's almost certainly leftist agitators who are, you know, walking around with swastikas so they can try to blame it on the right.
That's something that they do on occasion, but most likely that was just made up.
Anyway, continue.
Republican Representative Chris Todd says his bill has nothing to do with drag shows.
And why are we targeting this one thing?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And so far, Mr. Chairman, the only person that's mentioned anything about drag has been the representative from Knox County.
I haven't said a word about that.
Republicans did have some concerns, particularly on the vagueness of the bill.
Tennessee's own Miley Cyrus at Bridgestone Arena.
Seen her there in the past myself.
Would that cross the line?
Could she be subject to a pair of handcuffs based upon the vagueness?
Well, I hope so.
Ultimately, that answer would depend on if this bill passes the full legislature.
For now, the bill rests with the full Criminal Justice Committee.
In Nashville, Chris O'Brien.
You probably, okay, that's fine.
Now the full criminal justice.
Probably shouldn't bring kids to a Miley Cyrus show.
At least, maybe it was a Miley Cyrus show 15 years ago or something.
I mean, one thing, but in the modern, yeah, who would bring a kid?
Current day Miley Cyrus, you're gonna bring a what?
You're gonna bring a seven-year-old to that?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
If that's the slippery slope here, where now all of a sudden you can't even bring kids to a Miley Cyrus show, okay, good.
How is that some sort of horrifying, dystopian reality?
Now, I think it's actually really easy, though, to distinguish between something like a drag show and a pop star musical performance.
It would be pretty easy to distinguish between those things.
And I think even in the language of this bill, it succeeds in doing that.
But my point is that if you were to accept the slippery slope argument, I don't see it as a problem.
To have some basic standards of decency?
Especially as it pertains to content where children are involved.
Yes, we should have that.
Historically in this country, we've always had that.
It's only very recently where we've decided that the government has no role whatsoever in enforcing any standards of decency at all.
Even when it comes to kids.
And so if the sexual degenerates and perverts want to expose themselves to kids all day long and have sexual performance of kids, there's nothing we can do.
Because if we were to do anything at all, next thing you know we're in a Handmaid's Tale.
It's only very recently that people in this country have become stupid enough to buy an argument like that.
Now, the reporter there in the news article is not being honest.
What we hear is that the sponsor of this bill claimed that it has nothing to do with drag shows.
They're not saying it has nothing to do with drag shows.
They're saying it's not specifically outlawing drag shows.
What they're saying is it outlaws sexual performances for children.
And if there's a drag show that falls under that umbrella, then yes, it would be banned.
But this would also ban, for example, a burlesque performance featuring women where children are invited.
It would ban that, too.
Now, you might point out that that's not really happening, that most of this stuff is involving drag, but that only tells you something about the people that are putting on these shows.
That just tells you something about drag.
If the whole drag industry will come crashing down if they aren't allowed to involve children anymore, well then it sounds like the drag industry is one that should come crashing down.
And they continue to tell on themselves so much because they don't even, a bill like this that prohibits sexualized performances for children, they don't, the left, they don't just claim that it's anti-drag, they say that it's anti-LGBT.
So if you want a bill that says you can't put on a sexual performance for kids, you can't strip and tear clothes off in front of kids, you can't bring your sexual fetishes out and put on a performance featuring them for kids.
If you say that, then they say, well that's anti-LGBT.
What are you saying about the LGBT community?
If we tell you that you can't sexualize kids, that it's somehow... Are you saying that sexualizing children is a central, fundamental aspect of LGBT culture?
Is that what you're saying?
Because that would seem to be what you are saying if you are claiming that a bill banning the sexualization of children is anti-LGBT.
Alright, something else here.
Kind of an update to a story from yesterday.
We talked about, of course, the satanic ritual at the Grammys and conservatives reacting to it the way any normal sane person reacts to a nationally publicized satanic ritual.
Which is that, certainly this is the case for me, but for many other conservatives that I've seen on social media or elsewhere or in the media.
Most conservatives said, well, this is disgusting and gross.
Many have pointed out, as I did, that although it's disgusting and gross, it's also tedious and boring and derivative.
We've seen this a million times.
So that's kind of been the reaction.
I haven't seen anyone, like, running through the street like their hair's on fire, screaming and crying about it, exactly.
But people have objected, as they should.
And yet the left has launched into, and the left-wing media in particular has launched into their usual routine of making the story about our reasonable reaction rather than about the thing that we are reasonably reacting to.
So just one brief example of this, of many, is from the website The A.V.
Club.
And the headline is, Sam Smith wore devil horns at the Grammys and conservatives are losing it.
The article continues, as similarly seen with Lil Nas X's devilish Montero in 2021, conservatives had their satanic panic panties in a twist over last night's performance from Sam Smith and Kim Petras.
The two took the Grammy stage for a performance of their song Unholy, which won the award for Best Pop Duo.
In addition to Petras making history as the first out transgender woman to win the category, she and Smith stoked the flames of controversy with a fiery hell-themed performance, much to conservatives' chagrin.
Boneheaded political abomination Ted Cruz added his two cents last night, calling the set evil.
Marjorie Taylor Greene also tweeted about the performance, fit with a Pfizer conspiracy to dimwitted even bother breaking down.
Aside from the blatant thematic ties to Unholy, Petras says that the red lace performance was inspired by the duo's experience with religious institutions.
Petras told Variety, I think a lot of people honestly have kind of labeled what I stand for and what Sam stands for as religiously not cool.
And I personally grew up wondering about religion and wanted to be a part of it, but slowly realizing it didn't want me to be a part of it.
So it's a take on not being able to choose religion and not being able to live the way that people might want you to live, because as a trans person, I'm already not kind of wanted in religion.
So we were doing a take on that, and I was kind of Hellkeeper Kim.
Like the discussion around Lil Nas X and his striptease with the devil, conservatives love to ignore storytelling context, opting to spout off nonsense about queer and trans artists peddling out Satanism and immoral lifestyles to, oh my, the children.
Okay, etc, etc.
Yes, those conservatives who absurdly, you know, with their conspiracy theories, that these people are peddling Satanism.
As they literally dress as Satan and put on a performance that they admit was meant to resemble, and therefore is, a satanic ritual.
So they admit that's what they're doing, and then we notice it and say, look, they're doing a satanic ritual.
And then the media comes along and says, you conspiracy theorists claiming that it's a satanic ritual.
I get so tired of this routine.
This routine of intentionally trying to provoke people, and then when they're provoked, blaming them for being provoked.
And this is all, it's all meant to desensitize, and it's meant to convince conservatives that anytime something like this happens, what we should really do is say nothing at all and remain quiet and compliant and just be good little boys and girls and, you know, say nothing while the Satanists carry on.
With their BDSM-themed satanic performances.
That's what it's supposed to be.
That's how they want us to react.
And there are some conservatives that that is how they react.
And that's what they claim even after this.
There were some conservatives on social media who were saying, well, don't give them what they want and talk about this.
Just move on.
No, actually, that's not what they want.
Like, what they really want, yeah, I mean, if we talk about it, then they're going to try to use that to their advantage because that's how the game is played, right?
And they're going to try to use that to make victims of themselves and generate more publicity and all the rest of it.
But what they really want, most of all, is to be in a culture where they can carry on this way and nobody will object whatsoever.
That's what they're ultimately fighting for.
is a culture that totally succumbs to this stuff.
And so if you remain silent and do not object, then you are helping them towards that end.
Which to me seems rather obvious.
Finally, as we've discussed on this show, you know, yesterday we talked about marriage and, you know, husbands and wives and what makes men happy, etc.
I think partly, you know, as a consequence of this conversation, there's this TikTok video that has gone viral showing, once again, another one of these day-in-the-life TikToks.
And this one shows a stay-at-home husband.
We've seen one of these recently.
But this one somehow manages to be even worse.
And here it is.
Day one of being a stay-at-home husband.
Made us some tea and cuddled on the couch.
And then I started to pack her lunch before she went to work with all her favorite foods.
Snuck in a love note.
Drove her to work.
Came back to a mess.
Proof of me cleaning the mess.
Juice break.
Put away some leftovers from the night before.
Starting to unpack.
Met my wife at the train stop.
Had dinner together.
Packed her lunch.
Can't forget her snacks.
And sent her off to bed.
So, based on what I've been told, this is what women actually want, right?
This is what women are looking for.
A stay-at-home husband who will make them snacks and cuddle with them and waiting there like a puppy dog when they get home from work.
So they can provide, you know, that's what women want, right?
To provide for a man who's sitting around at home waiting for her to get back.
That's what, that's what it's, it's insisted that that's what women want.
And in fact, it's insisted that women should want that and that conversely men should, should also want to live the life that we see there.
And yet it's just, it's just not the reality in practice.
And we know that for a lot of reasons.
One of them, by the way, is that if this is the life that you choose, your chances of getting divorced are much higher.
In fact, even if both man and husband and wife are working, as soon as the wife earns more than the husband, divorce rates go up by 50%.
Okay, that's not my opinion.
That's just what happens.
And that again is, in most cases, where the husband's working.
Now if the wife is earning the most because the husband's not earning anything because he's at home, then it's likely the divorce rates are even higher than that.
So they're trying to shape our desires and tell us what we should want, and yet reality always has this way of just intruding inconveniently into that picture.
Now let's get to our comment section.
[MUSIC]
We all know when you're trying to find the right person, there are specific things to look for, such as someone who
shares the same goals, beliefs, and values, or if they're part of the Sweet Baby
Gang, which tells you that all the other things line up.
Too bad there's not some sort of technology that can easily find the right person for
you.
But if you're hiring, there is technology that you can use that will quickly help you
find the right person, and that is ZipRecruiter.
Head to ziprecruiter.com/walsh and try it for free today.
ZipRecruiter uses powerful technology to find the right candidates for your job.
If you see a candidate you like, you can easily send them a personal invite so they're more
likely to apply.
Their user-friendly dashboard makes it easy to filter, review, and rate your candidates
all from one place.
Let ZipRecruiter help you find the best people for all of the roles in your company.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
You can see for yourself how easy it is.
Go to ZipRecruiter.com to try ZipRecruiter for free.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Actually, here's even some more proof of the difference in the sexes.
Every day I'm confronted with the shocking reality that men and women are different, boys and girls are different.
So just yet another example, my nine year old daughter was going to a sleepover on Saturday
night and we don't do a lot of sleepovers, but it's a good family and they don't do phones
or any of that with their kids.
It's another kids have phones.
We don't worry about that.
Just all around we trust them.
So anyway, my daughter is heading out to her sleepover and she's got this duffel bag packed
with stuff.
I mean, the duffel bag weighs probably 55 pounds.
It would be, it's like if you tried to check it at the airport, you'd get charged an overweight
bag fee for it.
And it's stuffed to the brim with supplies.
This is what she's bringing for one night.
The sleepover party started at like four o'clock and she was back home by eight in the morning.
That's maybe a 16 hour stretch.
She needed apparently 25 outfits and other supplies as well.
Doesn't include her pillow and sleeping bag.
Now meanwhile, it's a difference in the sexes.
If we are going away on vacation for let's say a week or even longer, and we tell her twin brother to go and pack, Which, the last couple of times, we've tried this.
It's like we have the kids pack for themselves.
And then we'll say, well, go pack for the ship.
And her brother will say, okay.
And he'll run upstairs and he'll come back down in three and a half minutes with two t-shirts and a pair of sweatpants thrown into a plastic grocery bag.
And that's his plan for a week or longer.
That's all he needs.
So that's just one of the differences.
And of course, I don't think she actually used most of the supplies or clothing that she brought, but she did come home the next morning dead tired, like a walking zombie, and complaining that her friends were talking until like 2 in the morning and it kept her awake, and then they started singing songs from The Greatest Showman at like 1 or 2 in the morning, and she was complaining about this.
And I said, well, what did you expect?
Is this a sleepover with a bunch of girls?
It's like, this is, I assume what happens.
So I can't imagine how much talking must have gone on if it even annoyed my daughter, of all people.
All right.
Let's see.
Boundary Elephant says, interesting that Matt having a cold doesn't make him sound like someone with a cold.
It makes him sound like the AI-generated voice that Candace made.
Wayne Donald says, crazy that Matt Walsh with a cold sounds like the AI version of himself.
For all I know, this entire episode was a deepfake and etc.
Like 90% of the comments were making fun of my voice because I do have a cold and I'm like slightly losing my voice.
There was part of me that hoped that maybe most of the audience would just be mature about it.
I know my voice sounds weird.
You don't have to point it out and make me feel self-conscious about it.
But then, at the same time, I realized that we wouldn't be the Sweet Baby Gang if you didn't all give me a hard time and mock me ruthlessly for how I sound.
It's what I would do.
I understand it's the right thing to do.
And so, it's alright.
Steve the Grand Marshal says, Matt, I agree with you on almost everything, but I disagree on the DiCaprio thing.
It's honestly just creepy that a 50-year-old man is dating a girl old enough to be his granddaughter.
Even if she's legally capable of consent, it's still very weird, and honestly, the power dynamic there is also concerning.
So, I don't think you'd disagree with me in that case, because I never said that it's a good idea for a 50-year-old man to date a 19-year-old woman.
I never said it's a good idea.
What I said is that the feminists that are drawing a comparison to this and like child rape and child molestation who are saying that he's a sex predator.
Okay, that's absurd.
That's my point.
And then my second point is to observe the The many contradictions that are present in this idea that a 19-year-old can't fully consent to dating Leonardo DiCaprio, but a 15-year-old girl can consent to having her breasts removed and all the rest of it we went through yesterday.
So that was my point.
Now, so does that mean that as a 50-year-old man you should go date a 19-year-old?
No, I don't think so.
I would never want to do that.
The idea... I'm 36.
What would you even say?
What would you say to a 19-year-old?
I don't think I'd have anything to talk about with someone.
I couldn't possibly relate to them on any level because... It's not just the age gap.
I mean, the age gap is quite significant.
But, you know, not all age gaps are made the same.
So, if you're 35, dating someone who's significantly older than you, that's one thing.
If you're 19, dating someone who's significantly older than you.
Because at 35, you've been an adult for a long time.
You're in a different place in life.
So, it's really about the place you are in life.
And so, it's going to make it really hard to relate.
Now, on the other hand, I would imagine that Leonardo DiCaprio is not dating these girls because he's looking for interesting conversationalists.
So he's probably not as worried about the fact that he doesn't have much to say to them.
Cuz that's not what this is about for him.
And there's one other contradiction here that I think other people have pointed this out.
But when you compare the left's reaction, not everyone on the left, but this seems to
be a feminist thing that's starting now where they take these Hollywood actors that date
younger adults and try to turn them into sex predators.
But consider for a second this point.
If Leonardo DiCaprio was paying this woman directly, and in a sense he is because she's with him for the status and the money and the gifts and all the trips and everything.
He's with her because she's a good-looking, you know, younger woman.
And so that's what they're getting out of it.
So it is like a transactional thing.
But if it was more direct, okay, if she was a prostitute, then this would be sex work.
And then, according to the left and the people that are complaining about it now, then everybody involved should be applauded for their open-mindedness, for their progressive open-mindedness.
And that's probably the most absurd contradiction of all.
This is, I think, would apply to almost every single person that has tried to label Leonardo DiCaprio a sex predator for dating younger women.
If the younger woman was a quote-unquote sex worker, was a prostitute, and he was directly paying her for her time and her company, then they would all be fine with it.
It's only because she's not a prostitute that they refuse to applaud it.
You just, you can't get more backwards than that.
That this relationship between the two of them would only be acceptable in their eyes if it was prostitution.
And because it's not, it's not acceptable.
My God, these people are just, you really, you cannot get more morally backwards than that.
Yosef says, Matt, amongst all this satanic evil, I wanted to let you know that your show inspired me to quit porn, an addiction I had since nine.
Nine years old, my God.
Find God and reconnect with an old girlfriend whom I plan on marrying soon.
Thank you for what you do."
Well, I love to hear that, Yosef, and congratulations to you for getting your life together.
And then, let's see, finally, okay, Jay Stoss says, I thought Matt was going to cancel Maj Touré again.
I was really, really looking forward to it.
Well, if you're looking forward to it, then I have good news coming up.
As the sweet daddy of the Sweet Baby Gang, one of my duties is to clothe you, give you proper gang paraphernalia to represent the gang, just like the new notorious SBG t-shirt and my swag shack over at dailywire.com slash shop.
It's a great new addition to the Sweet Baby album T-Line, which is all the fun of pop culture with none of the Satan worship.
So to reiterate what I said yesterday, in spite of my God-given lyrical and rhythmic abilities, I make no promises about spitting bars for the gang.
This is a subject that never even had to be broached at all, except it keeps being put into the copy.
At this point, you're better off using an AI program to rap for me, which I guess, like, probably you could just do that.
Have fun with whatever Pandora's box that statement just unleashed and head over to dailywire.com slash shop to get your notorious SBG t-shirt today.
Guys, your lady loves you and means well, but without the proper nudge, she just might not get you the right Valentine's Day gift.
She might get you something like a silly stuffed bear or a pair of boxers with her face on it, and then you'll have to pretend it's what you always wanted.
How about you get something you actually want, like a Jeremy's Razors Valentine's Gift Bundle?
Now, just 30% off.
She'll love the price.
You'll love that it's not pink or covered in cartoon hearts.
It's the sappiest of holidays, of course, but you can keep your masculinity intact with the new Five Blade Sharpest Truth Precision 5 razor.
So you're, what, I guess you're buying this for yourself for Valentine's Day, or you're telling her to buy it for you?
I don't know.
Growing your whiskers instead of shaving them like a true man should that's just the start of dropping hints that you
want a luxurious Jeremy's beard kit just make sure you do it fast
So she orders today to arrive in time for a Valentine's Day Send her to Jeremy's razors comm to shop the 30% off Jeremy's
razors Valentine's bundle. You'll both be glad you did it also
Tonight it's finally here We're not talking about the Uncle Joe's State of the Union, which will no doubt be filled with mumble-mouth lies about how inflation is actually good for us and self-congratulatory victory lapses for sending us closer to World War III.
We're talking about the insightful and hilarious commentary from your favorite Daily Wire Plus hosts before and after the address.
Tonight at 8.15 p.m.
Eastern, join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klave, and Candace Owens.
Jeremy Borg for a one-of-a-kind commentary experience.
We'll give you a fresh and entertaining perspective on the State of the Union, and you can watch the whole thing on Daily Wire+.
So tune in for Backstage tonight at 8.15 p.m.
Eastern at dailywireplus.com.
Now, finally, let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we have a repeat customer on a daily cancellation as we must cancel alleged right-wing commentator Maj Torrey.
You may remember Maj from his previous appearance in this segment five or six months ago.
He had become incensed when I made the point that slavery is not an exclusively white sin and that in fact all races practice slavery and were victims of slavery.
Maj did not want this truth to be acknowledged and so he launched into a multi-day temper tantrum attacking me on various platforms.
And accusing me of racism.
I'm guessing his feelings will be hurt once again after the opening monologue today.
Ever since then, Maj has continued to look for any opportunity to whine about me, calling me a clown and a bigot and other insults, always in response to points that I've made that he then wildly and intentionally misconstrues.
Just last week, for example, Maj was posting Instagram videos and doing interviews on other podcasts and tweeting up a storm, furiously attacking me for suggesting that we should be tougher on crime in this country.
He was very offended by that, and he said that my advocacy for law and order makes me a neocon, which once again demonstrates Maja's unfortunate habit of using words without knowing what they mean.
And just a quick hint here, I'm an anti-interventionist who wants to suspend all foreign aid to all countries.
So that alone precludes me from ever being labeled a neocon.
You might as well call me a vegan while you're at it if you're just going to throw labels at me that are literally the opposite of who I am.
I've generally ignored most of Maja's crybaby fits.
In fact, I've never initiated any interaction with this guy in my life.
I've never intentionally tried to talk to him.
Prior to the whole slavery kerfuffle, I vaguely knew of him as sort of a right-of-center pundit and gun rights activist, and I would have considered him, in many respects, an ideological ally.
But sadly, Maj would prefer to use my name for clout and to take pot shots at me as a means of building up his own platform and increasing his own name recognition.
As he sees it, there's no point in working with someone when you can get more clicks and retweets by tearing them down constantly.
And this is a, I have to tell you, a depressingly common occurrence in the right-wing media sphere in particular.
And it's one of the many reasons why conservatives so often lose.
All that to say, by acknowledging him, I will be giving him the attention he so desperately seeks from me, and that's a downside of this.
I generally try not to feed the trolls, yet I can't help but make an exception in this case for reasons that may soon become clear.
So, late last week, a video went viral of a vicious assault on a school bus in Florida.
There was a large teenage boy, along with a couple other seemingly smaller and younger boys.
And they can be seen viciously beating a nine-year-old girl as she sits on the bus.
If you haven't seen the footage yet, it's very upsetting.
Fair warning, but here it is.
[CROWD SHOUTING]
And they could have killed her.
I mean, you beat someone over the head repeatedly, and that's a way to kill someone.
They didn't, thank God, but they could have.
And they wouldn't have cared if they did, by the way.
Now, the attacker in the video has been arrested and will face charges, though there's no reason to think that he'll ultimately end up with anything more than a slap on the wrist, because that's usually the way these things go.
But the fact remains, That the teenage boy beat the hell out of a nine-year-old girl a third his size.
It is a vicious, brutal, animalistic behavior and should be condemned as such.
Which is why I tweeted on Friday that these are, quote, children raised to be animals.
Because that's what they are.
Our friend Maj Touré, he didn't like that very much.
In fact, big surprise here, he once again decided that I was being racist.
Maj responded, so you know how these children were raised?
You know their parents?
No way that children do dumbass stuff on their own, even if raised right.
We definitely know they're raised to be animals.
Must be from the same racial jungle Biden talked about.
Shaking my head, you're a clown.
Maj then felt the need to record a video where he reiterates some of these same accusations, and here it is.
Said it before, we'll say it again.
Matt Walsh is a clown.
In response to that video that the children are on the school bus beating up on a nine-year-old girl that hit them first, overkill.
Dumb kids should be punished for overkill.
The kid did hit them first, however, it's overdone.
All right, children being dumbass children.
But Matt Walsh's response and quote tweet is, children raised to be animals, as if he knows the parents, as if he knows how they were raised.
And there, the thread is indicative of the same bigoted mindset that we're talking about.
This is not a conversation about a balanced approach to holding children accountable for doing dumb things.
This is a fake-ass dog whistle to, in essence, call black children raised to be animals, but you don't even know their parents.
Said it before, said it again, guys.
Clown.
I guess, I guess those are the animals, right, that come from the same racial jungle that Biden said he didn't want his children to be a part of.
Absolute clown.
Now, the funny thing here is that Maj would later go on to tweet that the people criticizing him for the comments you just heard there from him are Karens who have a victim mentality and are crying racism.
Yes, that's right.
We're crying racism.
Even though that's what he just did.
You heard it.
But this is about the level of cognitive dissonance you can expect from the same guy who recently said that it's reductive to use the phrase, all lives matter, because you're stealing it from BLM, even as he has an entire line of merchandise with the phrase, black guns matter.
So he can take the phrase for the purpose of monetizing it, but we can't take it for the purpose of emphasizing the value and worth of all human lives.
That's Maj Touré for you, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
As to the present controversy, there are a few points I need to make.
Naj, you say that I'm a clown.
Okay, but if I'm a clown, what does that make the grown man hanging out in my comment section?
See, there are plenty of people on the internet, people like, say, you, for example, who I think have nothing interesting or especially intelligent to offer, who I think are absolute idiots.
But the good thing is that I'm not forced to see or interact with their content, nor am I compelled to reply to everything they say.
So I guess my point is that if you really don't respect my point of view, if I'm just a clown as far as you're concerned, then, and I'm trying to put this as nicely as I can, piss off, dude.
Go live your life.
I release you from any obligation to be my reply guy.
In fact, you never had any such obligation.
So that's the good news.
Second, I never said anything about the races of the children involved.
It may shock you to learn this, but I am opposed to teenage boys of any race brutalizing nine-year-old girls of any race.
You know, you are the one who has once again found a way to racialize something while accusing everyone else of racializing it.
Because you're also a coward who can't stand on your own words.
And since you clearly do see this through a racial lens and you've made it a racial issue, I must wonder whether you would be so desperate to minimize the actions of the assailants if they were white boys beating up a black girl.
After all, you must have some kind of motivation that would drive you to utterly humiliate yourself by using the she started it excuse.
Now, it's not at all clear from the video who actually did hit first, and even if you did see a first hit in the video, That wouldn't tell you what happened right before the video started.
You see, videos almost always begin after the action starts.
Otherwise, there'd be no reason for anyone to be filming in the first place, okay?
Something happens, someone pulls out their phone, starts filming, so the first thing you see in the video is not the first thing that happened, Maj.
But that's all completely and totally irrelevant.
There is no circumstance that would ever even begin to justifies or minimize the brutal physical assault of a nine-year-old girl who is cowering with her hands over her head while being pummeled in the skull.
Okay, there are plenty of cases where the details about who started it really matter.
A fight between two teenage boys, for instance.
I think in that case, it matters who started it.
But when a little girl in third grade is being pummeled over the head by a teenage boy, the question of who started it could not be less relevant.
And it's only brought up by someone looking to minimize the guilt of the assailant.
Of course, you do issue a half-hearted denunciation of the assault by saying that the boys were being dumb and simply overdid it when they repeatedly bashed a nine-year-old girl over the head.
No, Maj, that's not typical dumb kid behavior, and it's not overdoing it.
To overdo something implies that there's a certain level of doing it that would be appropriate.
But when the it in question is the physical assault of a nine-year-old girl, there's no level that could ever be defensible, obviously.
Obvious to me, anyway.
Just like we don't condemn an arsonist who burns down a building by saying, well, he's overdoing it.
Because that would obviously imply that he's not necessarily wrong for setting fire to the building, but that the fire shouldn't have been as big.
In fact, overdoing it is exactly the sort of phrase you use when you don't want to fully condemn a certain action, which again raises the question of why you wouldn't want to fully condemn the savage physical assault of a small child.
Yes, I said savage.
You can cry about that too.
Hopefully, you know, this is also a question that you may ask yourself while looking in the mirror and wondering about the sort of man you've become.
Third, you're right that I don't know these boys' parents.
I don't know them.
From the looks of it, they probably don't know their parents either, certainly not their fathers.
And I can assume that because boys with good and attentive fathers, they don't beat the hell out of little girls.
Now, it's true that we as parents, we can't directly control everything our kids do.
Actually, in a literal and technical sense, we can't directly control almost anything they do.
Okay, because they aren't remote control cars or puppets on strings.
And if that's what we mean by control, like actually physically control their movements like they're drones or robots, that's not how it works with human beings.
They have free will and they act on their own delusion.
As parents, it's maybe more precise to say that we influence our children for better or worse.
You may not be in a position to actively control your kid when he's on the school bus and you aren't even physically present, but your influence is present even when you aren't.
And if your teenage child is viciously assaulting a third grader, that certainly speaks, and speaks very poorly, to your parental influence.
My guess, which is based not on racist dog whistles as you claim, but rather on a simple understanding of human nature, is that the boys in the video come from homes filled with violence and emotional and psychological chaos.
Children need moral formation.
This is the most important kind of influence we can give them.
And refusing to take charge of that process of moral formation is a form of moral formation itself, which is really moral deformation.
There are many morally deformed kids running around these days thanks to their morally deformed parents.
Now, if I'm wrong, and it turns out that the teenage boy who was brutally assaulting a nine-year-old girl actually comes from a loving and intact two-parent household where they eat dinners together, and they go to church, and they have family board game nights, and so on, then I will admit that the boy is an exception to the rule.
Still wouldn't change the rule.
The rule which says that children raised to be decent human beings will generally become decent human beings, and those raised to be animals will generally become animals.
But I don't think this is an exception.
I really doubt that.
The only exception today is that I've broken my usual habit of ignoring you and your desperate cries for my attention.
A habit that I plan to resume once again starting right now.
This is all just a way of saying that Maj Touré is today, once again, cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the Members Block.
