The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1085 - Chronically Immature Millennials Are Keeping The Toy Industry Afloat

Episode Date: December 20, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, toy companies are thankful this Christmas for the rise of a new demographic they call "kidults" -- those are adults who still buy children's toys for themselves. And there are a lot of them out there. We'll discuss. Also, four female track athletes challenging the policy of allowing males to compete against them suffer a defeat in court. The White House tries to explain what exactly it has been doing to address the border crisis. The answer is nothing at all. And a school in Maine begins a girl's gender transition while concealing it from her parents. Many such cases, and they're all outrageous. - - -  DailyWire+:   Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Ascension Press - Start the Bible in a Year podcast and get the reading for free: https://ascensionpress.com/walsh Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for a FREE Goldback with every $5000 purchase, when you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA with Birch Gold by December 22nd. Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/ - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, toy companies are thankful this Christmas for the rise of a new demographic they call cadults. Those are adults who still buy children's toys for themselves, and there are a lot of them out there. We'll discuss. Also, four female track athletes challenging the policy of allowing males to compete against them suffer a defeat in court. The White House tries to explain what exactly it's been doing to address the border crisis. The answer is, of course, nothing at all. And a school in Maine begins a girl's gender transition, quote unquote, while concealing it from her parents. many such cases, and they're all outrageous. All of that, and more today on the Matt Walls show. Now, if you're someone who has always wanted to read and understand the Bible, but you're not sure where to start, then check out the Bible in a year podcast from Ascension. The Bible in a year is currently the most popular religion podcast in the U.S. Millions of people have listened to it, and twice it's hit the number one spot on Apple Podcasts. In the Bible in a year, Father Mike Schmitz reads the entire Bible in a 365 daily episodes providing helpful commentary, reflection, and prayer along the way. What better,

way to start the new year than this. You can find the Bible in a year podcast with Father Mike Schmitz for free in your favorite podcast app or on YouTube. Plus, you can follow along with a special reading plan to help you better understand the stories. Unlike any other Bible podcast, Bible in a year follows a special reading plan that organizes the books of the Bible in a way that helps listeners understand the story. Get this reading plan at ascensionpress.com.com slash Walsh. If you want to start reading and more importantly understanding the Bible this year, go to ascensionpress.com slash walsh to download the reading plan for free. That's Ascensionpress. to download the reading plan for free.

You probably don't need any more reason to be frustrated as you wade through the holiday crowds to buy the cheap plastic toy gifts for your children that you know will all be lost or broken within three and a half hours of being opened on Christmas morning. But I will give you another reason anyway. So consider that, according to the latest data, a significant portion of the adults in that crowd are buying toys not for children, but for themselves. In fact, if you're not able to find the exact Barbie playset or Batman action figure or whatever that you're looking for, it could be because some adult has already purchased the last one, not for his kid, but for himself.

CNBC reports this morning about a new group of consumers that have been dubbed kiddults, kiddalts. These emotionally stunted intellectually shallow, overgrown adolescents well into their 30s or 40s, and yet apparently still, I don't know, riding around on big wheels, drinking their juice boxes, may be destroying society, but they're doing wonders for the toy industry. So that's the good news. This is from the report. It says there are two things keeping the toy industry afloat right now. Inflation and a consumer group known as cadults.

These kids at heart are responsible for one-fourth of all toy sales, annually, around $9 billion worth and are the biggest driver of growth throughout the industry, according to data from the NPD group. This cohort, which NPD defines as ages 12 and older, has been steadily contributing to the industry for years, but spending has accelerated in the wake of the pandemic, leading to year-over-year gains despite tough comparisons. It's an industry moment for the toy industry. It's an important moment for the toy industry, too, with the holiday season upon us,

While sales surged across the board for board games, puzzles, and play sets during the pandemic, the first nine months of 2022 saw a 3% decline in sales volume. Higher toy prices helped outweigh these losses, as sales revenue for the time period jumped 3%. NPD reported, cadults who tend to spend more on toys have a great fondness for cartoons, superheroes, and collectibles that remind them of their childhood. They buy merchandise such as action figures, Lego sets, and dolls that might typically be considered for kids. However, in recent years, toy makers have created product lines just for these consumers, realizing that demand is high for this generation of adults who still want to have fun. So, as the economy struggles and more and more adults drop out of the workforce entirely, adults are at the same time spending more money than ever on children's toys for themselves.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but this is not a sign of a healthy society. Now, granted, if 12 years old is the cutoff, then some of these kidults are actually just kids. And the good news is that if your 12-year-old is still playing with Legos, that's a great sign, actually. He has his innocence still. And Legos are a hell of a lot more wholesome and productive than staring at screens all day, as most 12-year-olds do these days, unfortunately. So that's fantastic, a 12-year-old playing with Legos. But the fact remains that a great number of the people in this demographic are, in fact, actual adults, millennials and Gen Xers who refuse to let go of their childhoods no matter what.

The Today Show highlights some more of the people in this group. Let's watch. I don't want to grow up. Find a toys for us to record. The guy with a million toys and toys that I can play with. Everybody knows the song. It's that Classies 80s commercial for Toys R Us. And it turns out a kid can always be a kid. It's true. There's a growing trend that finds more and more adults buying toys for themselves. The group being called kiddults, and it's proving to be a very big business. And our kid at heart, NBC News now anchored Joe Friar is here with more. This is a thing, huh? Yeah, good morning. I don't want to grow up either.

You know, new data is showing that people age 12 and older. Those are cadults, 12 and older. They now make up at least a quarter of toy consumers. And the industry is cashing in with new products marketed specifically toward millennials, even Gen Xers. Toys of Christmas past are now revisiting many in their adulthood. From adult happy meals, here are the fries and then a toy. To Barbie, who's starring in a new movie coming out next summer. Nostalgia is a driving force for a growing consumer group called the Kid Alt. CNBC reports that data from market research company NPD group show adults who are young at heart spend about $9 billion annually.

For the past two plus years, adults really started to gravitate towards toys and games, not just to spend more time with their families, which they were doing at home, but also for themselves to de-stress. Aaron Muterich is a former software engineer turned connoisseur of putty. He says grown-ups are stuck on reliving simpler times. times from their childhood. I think there is some level of nostalgia. Puddy was introduced in the late 1950s to children. We've seen it time and again where adults maybe think it is for children, but then once they touch the putty that their children have, they want one for themselves.

God help us all. I mean, it's gotten to the point where adults who play video games all day are essentially this generation's version of a man reading a leather-bound book in his study while smoking. a pipe. I mean, the gamer is mature and refined compared to a 40-year-old man who sits around and playing with silly putty all day. Now, what's the problem here? Well, the situation already feels rather hopeless based on the fact that we even need to explain the problem. What's the problem with adults sitting around all day playing with toys? I mean, it should be self-evident that your society is not in tip-top shape when adults are spending

billions of dollars on children's toys that they will play with themselves. Shows not only a catastrophic lack of maturity in the culture, but also a misalignment of priorities, a level of shallow materialism that is certainly unprecedented in the history of the world. I mean, this would all seem to me to be totally self-evident, but if I must flesh it out, then I would simply make the following observation. So first, nobody is saying that we should not have fun as adults. There's nothing wrong with fun and recreation. On the contrary, these are important parts of a whole and well-lived life.

Yet everything must be done in the right proportion and in a way that is properly ordered. Our trouble is that recreation has become the primary, if not sole focus of many people's lives. And what's more, their idea of recreation, their idea of fun, has not grown or evolved over time. They have grown physically, but their tastes have not. This is one of the most glaring signs of emotional immaturity. And the thing about emotionally immature people is that if you're not, If you ever talk about the problem of immaturity, they will laugh at you, which is exactly how you would expect an immature person to respond.

Of course, if we lived in a culture that was filled with mature, interesting, competent adults, adults with useful skills, adults capable of having intelligent conversations, able to grasp and to express nuanced ideas, adults who eagerly accept the duties and responsibilities of adulthood, et cetera, if that was the case, and still many of these adults also happen to be obsessed with superheroes and cartoons and action figures, then we might just chalk it up to a weird sort of quirk or eccentricity in our culture and not really worry much about it beyond that. But that is not the sort of culture that we find ourselves in. Instead, we are surrounded by immature idiots who have the skill sets, reasoning skills and ambitions and motivations of children,

and they also happen to have the hobbies and recreations of children. And so we can conclude, I think logically that all of these things are probably related, that the billions spent on the toys, the obsession with nostalgia, is both a symptom and a driver of the overall problem. And the overall problem is that the real business of adulthood is being delayed and sometimes shirked entirely. This is most obvious when we see the numbers of people refusing to start families and have kids of their own. I mean, it's no surprise that that's the case, given that they see themselves as kids, so they don't want to have kids. And since that's how they've chosen to live, they also don't realize that not only is it possible to have fun as an adult, like an adult, but you can even be a real adult and still enjoy the toys and games of childhood.

Like, I'm not even saying that when you become an adult, you can never pick up a toy ever again. But here's the difference. You know, those childhood toys, you're supposed to be playing with those with your own kids. I was just playing with Batman action figures yesterday. Okay? Just yesterday I was. But I was playing with my son. It was something I was doing with him.

I wouldn't sit down on the floor by myself and play with Batman toys because I'm a grown man. And there was a time when a grown man sitting on the floor and playing with action figures by himself would be immediately seen. as mentally handicapped and probably institutionalized for it. Yet, when you're playing with your children, it's a different story. I have indeed experienced, once again, many of the joys of childhood, but from the perspective of an adult who is now helping to introduce those joys to my own children. And the joy that I derive from it now is largely in seeing and being a part of their joy. This is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of a stable, functional, well-rounded adult that

you learn how to find happiness in helping other people to be happy. Now, another point here, I made the same observation when we were discussing the adult happy meals a few weeks ago. And, you know, we hear so much about how my generation is obsessed with nostalgia. This is like the millennial things, always talking about their nostalgia, constantly pining for the innocence of their childhood, growing up in the 90s, you know. And there's something wrong with nostalgia, unless it totally is. consumes your life and becomes your entire personality. But also, think about what they are nostalgic for. Their nostalgia is all tied to brands. Their nostalgia is a corporate invention. They're

nostalgic for consumer products. They're nostalgic for entertainment franchises. It is a very particular, very modern kind of nostalgia that is easy for brands to exploit and monetize because they invented it. But it's not the kind of nostalgia that drives people towards better, more complete, and fulfilling lives. It just doesn't. Now, a nostalgia for experience, a nostalgia for family, a nostalgia for actual meaningful events that you went through an experience as a child, that can drive you in a good and worthwhile way. So, you know, I find myself nostalgic for the family dinners that we would have when I was a child with my parents and my five brothers and sisters, and we would all sit around and have these big dinners. And I can be nostalgic for that.

Well, guess what? Now I have six kids of my own, and I find myself back at the dinner table again with four of them, because two are still unborn. But I found myself back at the dinner table again, recapturing that experience and passing it down to my kids, who I hope will pass it to theirs and so on. sort of generational passing that we're supposed to be doing. Not passing down entertainment franchises. I remember when I watched this franchise when I was a child. It's like experience, things that you did, things that meant something. That's what you're supposed to be passing down to your kids. The problem is that so many, in my generation, they were latchkey kids who came home to empty houses and divorced parents and ate dinner on the couch watching TV. And so their nostalgia is not

not for the experience, but for the thing they were watching. Last point. You know, you notice the way that things have completely flipped upside down. We have these adults clinging to their childhoods, while at the same time, we rip the childhood away from actual children. So children have their innocence stolen by groomers in public schools, by early exposure to porn, all of the debased and degraded things that kids are exposed to intentionally all the time. And it's this mechanism which is intended to corrupt children to destroy their innocence. And at the same time, when society is engineering this corruption, it is also beckoning towards adults telling them to come back and become kids again.

It's almost like we're trying to switch places. It's totally inverted and perverse. And we need to flip things back around and set it right. Let the kids be kids. They're the kids. Let them. If you're going to be obsessed with nostalgia and childhood innocence, be obsessed with protecting the innocence of actual children. It's their turn to be kids now.

We had our chance. It's over. We're adults now. Let the kids be kids. You know, there's a reason why Scripture says, when I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. It is time to do that, well past time, to put away the childish things. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Well, the lack of a red wave during the midterms lead to more reckless spending by a more emboldened administration, higher taxes, deeper inflation. If you're unsure how the next two years will unfold, talk to Birch Gold Group today about protecting your savings with gold. Berch Gold makes it easy to convert your IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metal. So you can own gold and silver and a tax sheltered account. Gold is the world's oldest, most proven form of currency. When inflation soars and all of their assets go sideways, gold is still there. This month, you can get a free gold back with every $5,000 purchase when you convert an existing IRA of 401k into a precious metals IRA. with Birch Gold by December 22nd.

All you got to text Walsh to 9898-98-98-98-Berch-Gold will help you own gold and also silver in a tax-sheltered account. So text Walsh to 98-98-98-98 to claim your free info kit on gold and talk to one of their precious metal specialists. With every purchase you make before December 22nd, you'll get a free gold back. This is a great stocking stuff for just in time for Christmas. Text Walsh to 98-98-98-98 and protect yourself with gold today. By the way, it is official now, I should tell you, we were, speaking of childish things, we were all competing in this Daily Wire fantasy football tournament, and it is official that I will be the ultimate loser.

I did come in last place. My strategy of never updating my team or even looking at it one time, turns out that wasn't the best approach. That's not the best strategy. So it would seem that fantasy football leagues are not like, you know, say, crock pot beef stew where you could just set it down and leave it and come back when it's finished. It doesn't work that way. So anyway, consequences is that I'm a loser and I'm required now to go and attend a WNBA game. There's no way around it.

There's no fine print. There's no legalistic maneuvers. I just have to do it and I understand it. And I will. In a way, I'm looking forward to it. That's a little bit too strong. I'm not, when I say looking forward to it, I mean that I'm dreading it. Like a condemned man dreads his execution.

But there is, I do feel maybe honored is what I should be saying, because I, as someone who admires pioneers and explorers, I feel honored that I will be the first human being to ever attend a WNBA game in person. In a way, I'm going to sort of be discovering the WMBA. So going where no man has ever gone before. The only question now is what to wear for the big day. And originally we had talked about wearing a free Britney Griner shirt, a little redundant now because she's free.

So now the thought is maybe I wear a shirt that says trade her back, which would be a little provocative. But if we're going to do it, if we're going to do this thing, if we're trolling in that WMBA game, that I think you've got to go all the way. Okay. So we'll start with this for The Daily Waters. as four female athletes who sued over Connecticut transgender sports policy lost their case in federal court on Friday.

A three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to throw out the girl's case, which are seeking to scrap a policy that allows biological males to compete on girls' sports teams in Connecticut. The four-track athletes, Selena Sol, who you may remember from what is a woman, she appeared in that. Chelsea Mitchell, Alana Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti, and their mothers had argued in their suit that Connecticut, High School Sports Authorities Policy allowing transgender students to compete on girls' teams just disadvantages female athletes and has caused them to lose out on opportunities and awards. I guess they're arguing that because that is obviously the case. I mean, it's not even really an argument.

It's just a fact. You can look at the times and you can see that, you know, we could see which girls in particular lost out on what opportunities and what medals and what awards that they would have otherwise gotten because the field was crowded out by these two males. They had asked for the court, the court for an injunction to erase the victories of two biological male transgender athletes who broke the 17 girls track, broke 17, get this right, they broke 17 girls track records. So these are records that were broken, 17 of them by boys. And so boys now own 17 girls' records. in track and field.

And they also snagged 15 women's state track championship titles. In 2019, two transgender athletes finished ahead of Seoul, causing her to miss out on a qualifying for finals and the opportunity to compete before college scouts. Mitchell has missed out on state championship titles four different times because she finished behind transgender athletes. But the court said that just struck this down and, uh, and they lost their appeal yet again. Now, the important thing to remember, as always, about these cases.

And like, not that this even matters that much, because the fact is that these boys did not belong competing against the girls no matter what, because they're not girls. And that's it. That's all we need to say about it. But it is also notable that these boys were, once again, not dominant male athletes. They were middle of the pack.

And this is, in a sport-like track and field, it's really easy to see all this because it's one of the most, probably the most quantifiable sport in existence. It's very simple, you're just running and whoever gets their quickest wins and you have the times and all of that. So you can look at their times,

and you can see that against the boys, with the times they're finishing in their races, they were middle of the pack, they weren't even qualifying for champions, championship matches. They weren't even getting to the states or anything like that. And then they go over to the girls and you take these middle of the pack mediocre boys, put them against the girls, and they are dominating nearly every single race that they run.

Taking 17 records. No better testament, both to the insanity of this policy and also to the difference between girls and boys. And I'm still waiting. It's just, it is a fascinating coincidence, isn't it? That we still have not seen a dominant male athlete discover that he's female. Isn't it just, you know, maybe we could get a study done on this or something like that. Why is it that there are plenty of male athletes who discover that they have women trapped inside them magically? So this seems to happen a lot.

But they're always middle of the pack. They're always mediocre. It's never the ones at the top. Hmm. It's always the mediocre athletes, and usually it's like they've been competing against the boys for a while, and then at some point they realize, well, you know what? I think I'm actually a girl, turns out. What do you know? I mean, I don't know. Is it because if you're racing against the boys, you're competing against the boys and you're dominating there that there's no incentive to want to race against the girls? You're already getting all the gold medals, and you're getting it against tougher competition. And so you'll take it. that, you'd prefer those accolades. But if you have to choose between being a mediocre, nobody male athlete or a dominant pretend female athlete, you'll choose that. Could that be the reason? Who knows? In fact, everyone knows who's honest about it. Okay, another report from the Daily Wire System. The Supreme Court has blocked the Biden administration from lifting Title 42, the statute

which gives commanders in chief the power to shut down immigration as an emergency action to keep communicable diseases out of the United States was last used by former President Donald Trump in reaction to the COVID outbreak. Family seeking asylum had filed a lawsuit in which led to a federal judge ordering the Biden administration to lift Title 42 by Wednesday. In order from Chief Justice John Roberts, staying the ruling, stayed the ruling of the lower court. Greg Abbott said in response, Texas and other states are insisting that the court leave Title 242 in place. Today's order is a step in the right direction. This helps prevent illegal immigration. So this was supposed to be lifted, I believe, tomorrow.

And now, for right now anyway, the order has been stayed. If it does end, then the floodgates are going to open and even more than they already are. And it'll be even more of a disaster, especially for towns that are down on the border. Now, the Biden administration, they've been hiding behind the fact that this was originally a court order. that was supposedly telling them they have to lift Title 42. What they don't want you to know is that they sought to lift it. This is what they wanted. As this surprisingly skeptical journalist pointed out to Karen Jean Perry yesterday, let's watch this.

If you're saying that Republicans aren't doing the work to get this done, and then you have someone like Joe Manchin saying, well, the president has the ability to ask for an extension, he should be asking for an extension because we're at this point where you've got a deadline and a crisis, is that within the president's authority to do that? So look, we remain under a court order to lift Title 42. That is a quarter order. That is a quarter order that is telling us to lift Title 42, and we're going to comply because we follow the rule of law.

But the administration sought to lift it. That is, but it is a court order. But that is started by you guys. It was a quarter order that has been provided to us, and so now we have to comply, and that is we have to comply by December 21st. It is, it is a law that is, but don't support. What I'm saying is that, what I'm saying is a court order that is been presented to us that we are going to comply with.

It's always fascinating when these people decide to care about things like the rule of law. It never, it just, it always sounds awkward. Phrase is like rule of law and also free speech coming out of the mouth of a leftist. It always sounds awkward coming in. You know that they don't actually care about that. And it's the last thing that they want to have to talk about or rely on, you know, or fall back on. But in this case, it's the rule of law. Well, the rule of law also says that we have borders.

The rule of law would stipulate that the borders be protected and that our immigration laws be enforced. That's also what the rule of law says. But the whole press conference on this subject was a disaster. She was also asked what exactly Kamala has. Harris is doing on this issue because Kamala Harris is supposed to be, this is supposed to be her thing. You know, she's heading up the immigration response and she's dealing with this crisis. What is she doing, though, Kamala Harris, besides laughing awkwardly and talking about vendigrams? What is she actually doing?

Karen Jean-Pair tried to give us an answer to that. The president tasked the vice president with studying and working on the root causes of some of these issues. I'm wondering if there's any update from this side of... the White House on what she's been doing and what she will continue to do as we're expecting an influx at the border as you know the president appreciates the partnership that he has with the vice president you're right that has been her charge to work in a diplomatic way on finding the root causes of of migration i don't have anything to lay out specifically on what that work looks like but again we appreciate her partnership and i would probably refer you to her office

on anything specific on the work that she's doing. It's been over two years. You don't have anything specific at this point? Would this work in any other context? Like, could you get away with that at your job with your boss? And we are allegedly supposed to, these are our, they're working for us, supposedly. And so we're supposed to be the bosses. And when, so if we want to know, like, what are you guys doing about this?

They should be able to give us some sort of answer. Yeah, they can get away with this. You couldn't, you know, if your boss gave you a project and said, here's what you need to do, this is the problem you need to solve. Two years later, you get called into the office. So give me the updates on that. Well, I don't have anything specific at this point. But it's certainly something that we're monitoring and we're, you know, I'm thinking quite a lot about it. I've made some Venn diagrams, if you want to see them.

You can never get away with that, but they can. Meanwhile, Texas border towns, as mentioned, like El Paso, are bracing. And here's an MSNBC report, which also maybe somewhat surprisingly is even talking about this issue, but here it is. Right now, as we speak, it is 30 degrees Fahrenheit that's below freezing in El Paso, Texas, where hundreds of people, including children, are sleeping on the streets after crossing the southern border. The mayor of that city declared a state of disaster this weekend, saying asylum seekers are not safe with shelters and processing centers at capacity. And in just two days, the Biden administration is ordered to stop using Title 42. The border policy health policy, the U.S. has used to turn back two and a half million asylum seekers since President Trump enacted it in March of 2020. An appeals court denied the extension requested by 19 Republican states on Friday.

clearing the way for the change unless the Supreme Court weighs in before the 21st. Humanitarian crisis, yes. Well, you know, the mantra peace through strength is probably never more applicable than at the border. Because if you want to stop this, do you want to stop it? Well, they obviously don't. But if you do want to stop this, you want to help these people. If you want to dissuade more of this, you want to end the human. humanitarian crisis, then there's a way to do it. You militarize the border. You round people up.

People are coming across the border illegally. You round them up at gunpoint, just like they do in many other countries across the world. If you try to sneak across the border in many other countries, countries that take their border seriously, you're going to find there's me guns pointed at you. And then you eject them from the country. You know, you start using. You start using very harsh and immediate methods. You become absolutely ruthless in the defense of the border and of national sovereignty. You let people know that it's not worth it to come here. It's not worth it to try to invade the country this way. It's not worth it to come here illegally. It's not worth it to try this. Not worth the risk. It's not worth the price you will pay.

You do that, and it's the best thing, first and foremost, for American citizens because you're defending American sovereignty, but also for the potential illegal immigrants. It is the most humane and responsible thing. If you don't want to end up with illegal immigrants that are, you know, huddling around, lying on the street, lying on sidewalks, and freezing cold temperatures, if you don't want people bringing kids across the border, or even worse, giving their kids to human traffickers who bring the kids across, if you don't want. that, then the only way to stop it is to not only round up the people that are here to stop it, but actually, but that's only one thing. You can stop the people that are coming across. We're not even doing that. But you can do that. But then what do you do to stop people from wanting to come in the first place? That's the actual issue. That's what Kamala Harris is supposedly working on. What are the root causes? That is a good question. Not a difficult question answer, but the root cause of, you know, the fundamental root cause of people, you know, trying to sneak across the border in droves, not even sneaking, but just coming across.

Fundamentally, it's because they believe that they can. They know they can. They know it's an option. You know, I always say this when we talk about illegal immigration. I don't, for me, it's, it's, it's, it's nothing personal. Like, yes, I'm in favor of actually building a wall, militarizing the border, rounding people up, being again ruthless in defense of the border is nothing personal for me against illegal immigrants. If I lived in Mexico, I would not want to be in Mexico. I would want to be here. And I don't know. If I lived there and I thought it was an option to just walk across the border and I thought that I could do that and then I'd be here and I wouldn't be there anymore, I'd probably do it. I understand why people do it.

You look at the places that they're leaving, I wouldn't want to live in those places either. And if you believe that you can just walk across as simple as that, why not? Of course, they don't have any respect for our laws because they're not citizens here. Why would they respect them? I mean, I don't have a ton of respect for other countries' laws. I don't need to. I don't live there. But it's not.

So I can understand that, which is why it's nothing personal when I say that these people need to be rounded up and ejected from the country. It's just what needs to happen for their sake and for ours. All right. Here's a report. This is from a website called the main wire, Mainewire. Maine, as in the state of Maine. A public school worker at Great Salt Bay Community School who coached a 13-year-old girl into a gender transition without telling her parents has only a conditional license to practice social work in Maine. The Maine wire has learned. Amber Levine, the mother of the young girl revealed at a school board meeting on Wednesday that she discovered a chest binder in her daughter's bedroom several weeks ago. Her daughter told her that the binder was provided by a social worker at the public school who encouraged her to keep it secret from her parents.

That's when Levine learned that the social worker and other school staff had started a social gender transition for the girl in October without her parents' knowledge or consent. sources have confirmed the social worker in question is Sam Roy, a 26-year-old University of Maine graduate student who has a conditional license from the state of Maine to work as a social worker. Roy started working with the Damar Escada School this fall. Roy is scheduled to graduate next year from the University of Maine with his master's degree in social work. So he doesn't even have the degree yet, but he has taken charge of this girl's quote-unquote social transition. Levine learned that the school had begun transitioning her daughter when she discovered a chest binder in the girl's bedroom. Chest binder is a device that flattens the appearance of a woman's breasts. They're sometimes used by individuals suffering from gender dysphoria or gender confusion.

Unless one properly, binders can cause or exacerbate health problems. Binders are typically used during social gender transitions and are considered a stepping stone to an eventual double mastectomy. Of course, surgery that removes healthy breast tissue. Although Levine knew that her daughter was seeing a social worker through the school, she did not know that her daughter was reassigned to Roy in October. She has never seen or talked to Roy. Okay. So this is, and this is not as unusual as we want to think it is. This is certainly not unprecedented.

Whereas school is, it's not even just that the school knows that a child identifies as the other gender and is not telling the kid the parent. about it. That's bad enough. That's already horrific. For the school, I mean, schools should not, a school should not know anything about your child that you do not know. There should be no information at all none that the school knows about your kid that you don't know. Because when we talk about the school, the school is not some sort of amorphous entity. It's, we're talking about people. And so is there any individual person who works at the school who has a right to know information about your child that you don't? Obviously not.

And that is especially the case when it comes to something like this. So that's bad enough if they're just concealing just. I mean, if they're concealing this kind of information. But in this case, they are actually facilitating this quote unquote transition themselves. Took it upon themselves to do that. Of course, while not only not telling the parents, but actively concealing it from them. By the way, this article says that, and I want to make sure to note this, the article says that chest binders, unless worn properly, are damaging,

well, there is no proper way to wear them. They are damaging, period. The whole point is to flatten, you know, the chest. There's no healthy or proper way to do that. There are ways that are, you know, so when we talk about proper or healthy way of wearing a chest binder, what they really mean to say are here's the way to do it that will supposedly mitigate some of the harm that this is going to cause the child. But there still will be harm no matter how you slice it. And this is one step towards the surgery. So when the left says that they're not performing these surgeries. They're not performing these surgeries. surgeries on kids. That's a lie. First of all, they are performing surgeries on kids. They're performing double mastectomies on girls as young as 15, 14 years old, maybe even younger.

But also, the so-called social transition, that is about putting the child on the conveyor belt, which leads directly to the surgery. And most of the kids will stay on that conveyor belt all the way down, you know, until they get to the part with the saws and the blades. that's what it's about. And the schools, they don't see any problem with this. Because as far as they're concerned, these kids are theirs. The kids belong to them.

And you should know that. So I'm always preaching about homeschool. But if you can't do homeschool and you feel like you have to send your kid to public school, it really should be the last resort. But if you're going to do it, then you should just understand that you cannot implicitly trust anyone there. You especially can't trust counselors, therapists, social workers. I mean, you can't, we're at a point now, sad to say, where you can't trust people in that field at all.

I mean, that entire field is ideologically captured. It is hostile to you. And it just is. You cannot trust it. I would not send my kid to any of these people, period, especially not unattended. So if your kid does, you know, if you really feel. feel like your kid needs to see some sort of counselor, then you need to be in the room. But the schools, this is what they believe, that they own your kids, the kids belong to them,

you are, talk about things being inverted. You know, you are the, you are the, you are basically the hired help, and they have ownership of your child. That's how they see it. All right. One other thing to get to, this is from the son. It says, Britney Spears's father last night defended the controversial legal order that sparked worldwide outrage, insisting she could have died without it. Speaking exclusively for the first time about the 13-year conservatorship, which controlled almost every aspect of the troubled U.S. pop star's life, Jamie Spears claims he is far from the monster he has been painted as in his first interview in more than a decade. Jamie, speaking ahead of a book by Brittany's ex-husband Kevin Federline about fatherhood in the midst of public drama, said,

quote, my God, where would she be without that conservatorship now? I ain't going to paint you no pretty pictures. That conservatorship was one hell of a time, and without it, I don't know if she would be alive now. Jamie 70 years old has endured slurs that claimed he wanted power over Britney, 41, to line his own pockets and micromanage her career, even though he says all decisions under the order were taken jointly with a, quote, group of very good people. Her fans saw him as a controlling puppet master. You know, this whole story is frustrating to me. You know, this hitch fork mob that has assembled demanding that Britney be released from her conservatorship, despite having absolutely no idea what was going on behind the scenes.

Okay? No idea. And I made this point at the time. It's like you're calling Free Britney. You don't, you have no clue what's actually happening. You don't know. You saw a Netflix documentary. It's all you saw.

That wasn't even pretending to be objective. All they knew is that is what Britney Spears. told them and surprised, Britney Spears doesn't think she should be under a conservatorship because every person who is in a conservatorship doesn't want to be in one. That's just assumed.

That doesn't mean that automatically, like anytime you're forcing someone to do something, of course, you have to force them, which means they probably don't want to do it, but the fact that they don't want to do it doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong. It could. I mean, it could be wrong, but it depends.

Like, there are people in the world who are a danger to themselves and others. Whether Britney Spears is one of those people, that's a different conversation. But those people exist. There are those people out there. And for people like that, these kinds of arrangements can be necessary because otherwise they're going to hurt themselves or hurt other people. Now, as for Britney Spears, what do we know about her? Well, we didn't know a lot, but based on what we knew, she was a nutcase. She lost custody of her own kids in California. A woman lost custody of her own kids in California, do you know how utterly disastrous of a mother you have to be to lose custody of your kids in California, no less? So we knew that. We saw all the crazy stuff on social media. We saw how she rambles incoherently. Like, even when she was defending. herself and trying to explain why the conservatorship was terrible, she couldn't string together a coherent sentence. She's like incoherent.

Does all of that mean? And now she's like posting 56 nude pictures every day. And she's like it's like naked babbling incoherently. It's all the signs of a crazy person. Does all that mean that she actually is crazy? Well, I can't say that for sure because I don't see what's going on behind the scenes. But like it seems like all the signs are pointing in that direction. there are no signs pointing to her being actually sane.

Does that make her dad a good guy? No, because he pimped his own daughter out to the music industry when she was like 15 years old. So he, at a minimum, consented at a minimum, to having his teenage daughter turned into a, you know, into what she was turned into. So, you know, her first song, she was like 15, 16 when she performed that song. So he's obviously not a good guy, which is why if people had been arguing that someone else should have control over the conservatorship, then that would be one thing. But instead they said free Brittany and just free her entirely. And now she's probably going to be dead of a drug overdose within a couple of years. And all of her fans that called for this, like, this is going to be partly on them. This is what you wanted. Does anyone think she's going to live to 50? Does anyone think that? Does anyone see that happening? Seems very unlikely. All right, let's get to the comment section. If you're listening to this show, odds are that you put a lot of stock and how you raise your kids.

You understand that your children look to you to define their values and their perspectives of the world. That's why it's extremely important that you have a will in place. A will also determines how your financial assets are dispersed as well as your personal property. It lays out your health care power of attorney to ensure that your end-of-life decisions are carried out. If you're just starting out and you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on an attorney, but you want to make sure that your savings, your belongings, and your family are all protected. You have to create your will at epicwill.com today. Epicwill's early estate plans start at just $119 and you can save 10% when you use promo code Walsh.

Go to epicwill.com. Use promo code Walsh to save 10% on Epicwill's complete will package. That's epicwill.com promo code Walsh. All right. This is from M says my ex grew up in a religious home. but still got exposed to porn at the age of 12 while a friend's house. His friend said to him, hey, you want to see something cool before he knew it? He was viewing this material for the first time on his friend's desk top.

His parents had zero clue. This experience turned into a full-blown addiction. It was one of the contributing factors to our breakup. Point is, this smut needs to be outlawed. Yeah, this is, and there are so many stories like this. I mean, millions of stories just like this of people who were exposed to this. And in a way that, like, the person you're talking about, did he have bad or neglectful parents? Maybe he did, but there's no indication from the story you just told that he did.

Given that this stuff, and this, I'm assuming was several years ago at least, it's only gotten more pervasive since then. So it would have been difficult enough, like in the early days of the Internet being sort of a household item. even back then, it would have been very difficult, would have been difficult for parents to hide, you know, to shield their kids from this kind of content. But back then at least, the internet only existed on desktop computers. And so it was, it was much more contained. Now everyone is walking around with devices in their pocket that can access pornography. And so it's just you can do a lot of lot to shield your kids. And there's a lot that parents could be doing that they're not. But there's only so much you can do, given that this stuff is everywhere. And we have just made it impossible for parents, which is why I said yesterday, can, is it, can we help parents out a little bit? I just get, I get so frustrated when I hear people say, oh, these parents, you know, it's all about the parents. Okay, easy for you to say, as a childless person who has no

stake in the future of this country, who has no responsibilities at all. You know, you were just set target in the toy section buying more Spider-Man action figures. So it's easy for you to say, parents today, you're not doing anything. You have no idea what you're talking about. Okay, you're still, you're still living as an overgrown child, but those of us who have kids, we understand that this, that we have been put in an extremely difficult situation. We live in a culture that is absolutely hostile to children. And there are booby traps laid out everywhere. And so when we say, hey, can we get a little bit of help here? What we get in response is, this is your problem. And why do we hear it? Like, why is that? Why the hostility?

It's, again, because these people, they don't want any hindrance or any inconvenience at all. in their pursuit of masturbation material. And they are willing, they're willing, I mean, there are people today, many people, they would be willing to sacrifice the innocence of a billion kids just to make it slightly easier for them to masturbate to pornography. And if that sounds like a, like, you have to be a sociopath. Well, yeah, we're surrounded by sociopaths. Let's see, Lena McCune says, it's scary how they expect parents to keep their kids off porn, but also increase the amount of work expected to be done on the Internet.

I'll keep my child off the Internet as much as humanly possible, but I don't feel confident that she won't see something inappropriate. Another perfect example. This is what I'm talking about, not making any easier on parents. So while we say keep the kids off the Internet, more and more of the schools are saying, you have to be on the Internet. We're structuring life around the Internet. Becky says, I know someone who has been addicted to pornography since he was eight. Eight. He's married with two kids now, one on the way, and his marriage is suffering.

Porn is absolutely evil for children, obviously, and adults. Eight years old. I mean, kids are being exposed to this stuff. It's bad enough if you had a healthy childhood and you were introduced to human sex. sexuality in a healthy way. And then you find pornography. So that's bad enough. But in this case, you're taking kids and this is their introduction. It's not like a biology lesson. It's not anatomy class. It's not a birds and the bees talk from their parents. Their introduction is whatever you find on Pornhub. This is the gateway in. So from the very beginning, like this goes all the way to the root for them. From the very beginning, their concept of human sexuality and the

sexual act and all of that has been totally shaped by what they see on the internet. And Kyzo Kudos says, if you've ever wondered what Christmas cards from this man would be like, well, death is inevitable Merry Christmas from Matt Walsh. That is, you know what? In its own way, I consider that a message of merriment and joy. We're just days away from Christmas and you can't hide from the truth any longer. You still don't have gifts for everyone on your list. You know it. And although you may be tempted to disown them altogether rather than brave the last-minute Christmas rush,

Jeremy's Razors is here to help. Jeremy's e-gift cards are the perfect present for all those woke-free folks you narrowly neglected. And they're 100% guaranteed to arrive in time for Christmas. That's right. Not even Joe Biden's supply chain can prevent your friends and family from unwrapping a great gift on the big day. And whether they opt for the Precision 5 Razor with a flipback trimmer, tea tree, and argon oil, shampoo, and condition, or even the luxurious beard kit, you and your gift card recipients can take extra merriment, knowing that you've helped make woke razor companies that hate you, even poorer. Bring a gift, not an excuse. Go to DailyWire.com slash Walsh to pick up your Jeremy's Razors e-gift cards and put the finishing touches to your Christmas shopping today.

Now let's get to our Daily cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, I must circle back to something from last week. You may recall early the previous week when Elon Musk got himself into trouble with the woke brigade for making fun of the preferred pronoun ritual. And we discussed the issue on this show, and I explain, as I have many times in the past, that it's not only valid but necessary to mock preferred pronouns because the whole concept of preferred pronouns is fundamentally nonsensical. And that's not just because men are demanding that incorrect female pronouns be used for them and vice versa, but because the entire concept of a person having, a preference when it comes to pronouns, the idea that they can have a pronoun at all is incoherent. And I made this same point on Twitter where I posted, quote, nobody has pronouns. You can't have a pronoun any more than you can have a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesn't make

any sense. Pronouns are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are parts of speech. That's it. You don't get to customize them. So that's what I said. My point, pretty basic, self-explanatory, hard to misinterpret. You would then. Now, it will surprise you to learn that this, surprise you to learn this probably, but I've been trying to spend a little bit less time on Twitter recently, so I never checked to see how people responded to that tweet, and I didn't know that it had gone relatively viral, and the left had seized on it, and they were trying to dunk on it. I was oblivious to all of this, and they were dunking for days, and I didn't even know, like the proverbial falling tree. They were dunking in the forest, but nobody was there to

see them, so did they really dunk at all? That's a philosophical question. But then this weekend came, And I was flying back and forth from Phoenix and I was bored on the plane. And so I went back and I stumbled upon these responses. To summarize, basically, the leftist on Twitter had apparently decided that my argument was hilarious and ridiculous and stupid because, as so many pointed out, I was using pronouns while tweeting against pronouns. Yes, they had decided that I was making an anti-pronoun case. I'm against pronouns as a concept. I'm opposed to anyone using pronouns for any reason they decided. And so it's very funny that even while telling people not to use pronouns, I was using them myself.

Checkmate, they got me. Now, one example of this rebuttal came from a woman named Jessica Piper. Her response caught my eye in particular because she is apparently a teacher, an English teacher. And she's also a former political candidate. But it's her status as a teacher that makes the following response from her quite troubling. And she said, quote, they aren't sending their brightest, are they? The first word in this rant against pronouns is a pronoun, laughing face emoji. She continues, grammar check, how many pronouns are in this message against using pronouns?

She then includes an accompanying TikTok video where she circles all the pronouns in my tweet with the curb your enthusiasm music in the background, because aren't I such a dummy for being anti-pronown even while using pronouns. Now, if you have better reading comprehension skills than our friend Jessica, you've already made note of the problem here. I, of course, never said that we shouldn't use pronouns. I'm not against pronouns. I have not taken an anti-pronoun stance. I'm saying that, I'm saying not that pronouns can't be used, but that they can't be possessed. They can't be owned like a pet. Pronouns are not fashion accessories. You don't have pronouns. People use pronouns. They use pronouns to refer to you,

But the pronouns that they choose when referring to you are not meant to reflect your preferences or your self-image. They are not borrowing your pronouns so that they can use them. Okay, it's not the way it works. Excuse me, sir, if that's what you are, may I borrow your pronouns? That's not how it works. It's just, it's grammar. And they are meant to reflect physical reality. That's my point.

You can disagree with it, I suppose. You'd be wrong if you disagreed with it, but you're free to be wrong. What you cannot do is invent an entirely different argument. ever made, and then think that you've defeated me by tearing down the argument that I didn't make instead of the one that I did. Otherwise, not, of course, is making a straw man. Now, I made this observation to Jessica, and she responded, quote, the fact that Matt Walsh is quote tweeting me on the topic of grammar, a subject which I have a whole ass degree, I bet he's fun at parties. Now, I'm not sure what part of this is my favorite. Is it that she's

bragging about having a degree in grammar, even while revealing that she has the reading comprehension skills of a toddler? Or isn't the fact that she has a degree, it uses phrases like whole ass? Or isn't the fact that she sent three tweets and made a TikTok video in reaction to my statement, and yet is now taking offense at the mere fact that I would dare respond to her at all? Or is it the implication that being fun at a party means agreeing with Jessica about whatever nonsense she happens to be spewing? Now, I very much doubt that Jessica is getting invited to parties, but if she is, she has ironically revealed herself to be exactly the sort of person that you avoid at a party at all costs. So take your pick of the litter there, I suppose.

This only goes to show what sort of bind the left finds itself in. They cannot defend their position on pronouns or on gender ideology as a whole. Jessica, as an English teacher, cannot begin to articulate an argument as to why the pronoun we use to refer to someone should depend on how if that person happens to be feeling that day, rather than being based on our own perception of physical reality. She can't explain why we should have our own preferred pronouns and not our own preferred adjectives and prepositions, which everyone else is required to affirm and to use and reference to us. She can't do that. In fact, she can't explain why this pronoun customization only applies to certain pronouns in certain situations.

So what if I were to make the following statement? What if I were to say this? I was talking to Jessica Piper about pronouns. We believe that preferred pronouns are nonsense. Now, Jessica would probably object. She would say, no, we don't believe that. You believe that. And you're just you.

You're not us. It would be no use then for me to clarify that my preferred pronouns are I, we, and us. Those are my preferred pronouns. So anytime you talk about me, you have to say I, we, or us. Indeed, Jessica would flatly refuse to use my preferred pronouns in that case. She would say that though I get to choose my own, I can't choose those. Why can't I choose those? Well, because it doesn't make any sense for me to insist that other people say the word we

when referring to me given that I am just an individual. I'm not everyone. In other words, she will declare that in this conflict between physical reality and my perception, physical reality wins out. In this case, but not in others. I'm betting she would say the same if I told her that my pronouns are me, I, and myself. Those are my only pronouns. Therefore, when you refer to me, you must say me or I when talking about me, which means you'll be talking about yourself because I identify as you and also me. I identify as everyone. Your identity has been collapsed into mine, according to me, and it's how I identify.

Now, she probably wouldn't respect that either. She would say that, well, that makes no sense. You can't identify that way. And even if you do, you can't, I'm not going to affirm it. So it turns out that I can't just choose any pronoun I want. It turns out that there are still some rules here. And those rules, when they are applied, are based on physical reality. They are based on a need to be coherent. At times, a basic level of coherence is required,

but not at all times. So I can't have, it would be too incoherent for my pronouns to be I, me, or we. But if my pronoun was Z, Zer, and Zim, literal gibberish that doesn't mean anything, that's okay. So who decides when a physical reality trumps self-perception? Who decides when it's necessary to be coherent and when it's not necessary to be coherent? Well, I guess, Jessica Piper decides her and people like her. Those are the real rules of grammar now. That's what they're going to be teaching the kids in English class. The rule is they decide what the rules are and when they're applied and to whom. That's the logic we get from English teachers these days. And that is why she and all the rest of them are today canceled.

And that'll do it for this portion of the show is move over to the members block. Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.