The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1231 - The Biggest Corporations In The Country Instituted A Near Total Ban On Hiring White People

Episode Date: September 27, 2023

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a truly shocking new report shows just how bad the anti white discrimination in corporate America has become. It's even worse than you thought. Also, looting breaks out in a major American city once again. Is there any way to put a stop to this? Yes, easily. And a non-binary influencer breaks down in tears on a podcast when his views are gently challenged. Plus, the media is finally starting to realize single parenthood is not ideal.   Ep.1231   - - -    Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm    - - -    DailyWire+:   Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY   Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Good Ranchers - Get $25 off your order PLUS free ground beef for 2 years! Promo code Walsh at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT    Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation text WALSH to 200-300   - - -   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, the Matt Welles show, a truly shocking new report shows just how bad the anti-white discrimination in corporate America has become. It's even worse than you thought. We'll talk about that. Also, looting breaks out in a major American city. Once again, is there any way to put a stop to this? Yes, actually easily we could. And a non-binary influencer breaks down in tears on a podcast when his views are gently challenged. Plus, the media is finally starting to realize that single parenthood is not ideal. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. We all have a lot on our schedules with how much we have to do every day, soccer practice, science fairs,

prepping for the holidays, etc. The good news is you can take one big thing off your plate by putting great meat on your plate with good ranchers. You care about what your family eats and so does good ranchers. That's why they've spent years building relationships with local farms to source the best 100% American beef chicken pork and now

wild caught seafood too. The best of the land and the sea can now be conveniently delivered to your door. Right now they're offering two years of free ground beef to anyone who subscribes. That's a $480 value. Two years of free high quality ground beef and a locked-in price. No other meat company guarantees you 100% American meat and locked-in prices. That's because no one else is Good Ranchers. You can save on your beef, chicken, and pork.

By locking in your price today, every single steakhouse quality cut is individually wrapped and flash frozen to make meal time easy. Act fast since this deal won't last forever. Go to Good Ranchers.com today. Use My Code Walsh for $25 off and free ground beef for two years. Remember, subscribe to any box to lock in your price on America's best meat for two whole years as well. That's good ranchers.com today and use my code Walsh for over $500 in savings. Subscribe to Good Ranchers, American Meat Delivered. If you open any history textbook in this country, you'll learn that the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement was supposedly the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And for the first time in American history, the law banned discrimination based on race, particularly in the context of employment. And from that point forward, we were told businesses would not be allowed to hire or fire people because they were black or white or or whatever. It was supposedly the dawn of a new era. Lyndon Johnson might have escalated our role in Vietnam, but at least he finished what JFK started and signed the Civil Rights Act, and we should all be thankful for that. That is the comic book version of civil rights law anyway, which also happens to be what pretty much everybody believes to this day. The truth is different, though. The truth is that in 2023, the Civil Rights Act is not simply a dead letter. It is a document

so defunct, so pointless, so irrelevant, that it is a different. It is a document so different that it is a stopped prohibiting racist employment discrimination several years ago, and no one even noticed when it happened. At least since 2020, and probably much earlier, the largest corporations in this country have openly discriminated against white people solely on the basis of skin color. And to be clear, we're not talking about, quote-unquote, holistic discrimination or discrimination at the margins here. We're talking about a de facto near total ban on hiring white people.

So here are the numbers. And there's no need to, you know, hype this up or use hyperbole because the numbers by themselves are shocking, like hard to believe. In 2021, the largest public companies in the United States, meaning the companies in the S&P 100, they hired collectively 300,000 people in that year. Now, of those 300,000 people, only 6% of them were white. So a total of 94% of them were so-called people of color, meaning blacks, Hispanics, and so on. Now, this is data so extreme that it doesn't even seem to be real. Even if you know that anti-white discrimination is a real problem and it's happening in this country and it's mainstream, even if you knew that, when you hear these numbers, it's, again, hard to believe.

These are the kinds of numbers that appear at first glance to be impossible. But they're not impossible. The biggest corporations in the United States with the best-funded legal departments in the entire world implemented this virtually absolute ban on hiring whites without any regard to the hallowed civil rights act. And there was not a single news story about it. There was not a single member of Congress of either party who paid any attention to the fact that 94% of new hires among the biggest corporations in the United States were non-white. Now, to be fair, as this was happening, companies in the S&P 100 insisted that they were,

weren't targeting whites in particular. For example, here's one Apple executive telling the Washington Post that their main goal in the era of George Floyd is not to punish anyone. Instead, Apple said they just want to honor the victims of supposed racial injustice and create a more equitable playing field. Watch. So Apple has taken an illistic approach, sort of approach to criminal justice, education, small business, or economic empowerment.

why this approach, as opposed to, say, a more concentrated approach that focuses on one of those issues? Yeah, it's great question. I think we wanted to try to touch the places where we thought we could have impact. And in honor of how this all got started, you know, our racial equity and justice initiative is three years old. It started in the wake of the George Floyd, the Brianna Taylor deaths. And we wanted to honor their encounters with the criminal justice system, which were so deeply unfair, to say that those murders, as they happen, should also, there should be work done in that area as well. Yes, we have to honor them. We have to honor these scumbags. We have to honor these criminals, drug addicts, and drug dealers. We have to honor them. We have to honor them by making sure that only 6% of our jobs go to white people. By the way, white people still account for, I think, like 70% of the U.S. population in total.

So that's 6% of the jobs going to 70% of the population. Now, on the other end, black Americans account for about 13% of the population. And if you see a disparity where only 6% of a certain kind of job are going to 13% of the population, we're told that this is a massive, massive problem. And this is systemic racism. So 6% to 13% would be systemic racism, terrible, awful. It's slavery. It's Jim Crow.

But 6% of the job's going to 70%. Now, well, well, there's nothing to see here. The executive at Apple goes on and on with a bunch of platitudes. And she never mentions that the S&P 100 is going to unperson hundreds of millions of white people effectively. She never says that Apple is going to start running ads. with a diverse array of overweight, multicultural actors having a little sit down with an obese rendition of Mother Earth, Apple, like so many other companies in the S&P 100, tried to keep its hatred of white people under wraps, and for the most part, they succeeded.

We only know about what's happened here because of an article in the left-wing Bloomberg news of all places. And incredibly enough, this was not an article condemning the overt racist discrimination of the S&P 100. Not at all. This was not a breathtaking piece of investigative journalism that demanded answers as to why the most powerful corporations were not hiring whites because they're whites. Instead, the article from Bloomberg made this racial discrimination sound like a great thing. Bloomberg endorsed it more or less.

Here's the headline from Bloomberg News. And again, this is the only reason we even know about this. The only outlet reporting on the fact that's only 6% of the jobs with white people is Bloomberg. but here's how they framed it. Corporate America promised to hire a lot more people of color. It actually did. The relief from Bloomberg was palpable. Thank God that thousands of white people didn't get hired in 2021, Bloomberg was saying. In fact, Bloomberg went a step further than that. Bloomberg also published the story under a banner reading Equality. So they acted like it's a win for equality to reject the vast majority of white applicants. That's equality. Because nothing screams equality

like preventing white people from getting jobs. That's equality. What Bloomberg did is collect data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which by law requires that large companies report their demographics to the government. And in the interest of full disclosure, we have to note that we haven't seen all this data

because Bloomberg hasn't published all of it. And a lot of this is not posted by the government online either. But from what Bloomberg has disclosed and from publicly available records, we can make a few determinations. And for one thing, and this is a minor point, but it's important to make it anyway, from what we can tell, the data appears to be counting Hispanics as people of color. So you'll notice that when Hispanics commit violent crimes, like running over retired ex-police chiefs with stolen cars, for example, they're listed as white on official records. But in this case, they're considered people of color.

Make of that what you will. So if they get a job, they're a personal color. If they commit a crime, they're white. The other point more important, though, is that Bloomberg's data only captures hiring by companies in the S&P 100. And that includes some of the most recognizable and biggest companies, of course, in the world, like Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Citigroup, CVS, Boeing, and so on. But it doesn't include the vast majority of companies in this country, including small businesses. In all Bloomberg reports, the corporations, the S&P 100 hired around 320,000 people in 2021 for comparison that year. the U.S. economy added around 6 million jobs overall.

So what are all the other businesses in this country doing? Are they also rejecting white people because they don't have enough melanin in their skin? That's a very good question. It's one that Bloomberg doesn't answer. From what we can tell, looking at data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thankfully the answer right now is no. So this trend seems to be limited to the largest companies in the S&P 100. Overall, there has not been as much of a trend among most small businesses and mid-sized businesses

in this country to stop hiring white people. That's a good thing. Instead, we're dealing with a top-down artificial system of anti-white discrimination that only the very biggest companies are engaging. And of course, it's also true that, you know, most companies could not possibly afford

to ban the hiring of white people. That would leave them with a pool of qualified applicants so small that they would go under within a week. They just, they couldn't do it. So if you're looking for the kind of glass, half-empty interpretation on all this data, you might say that the companies that could afford to stop hiring white people did.

And the ones that couldn't afford it didn't. Either way, there's no way to minimize what's happening. Think about all the qualified white people who were passed over for jobs. Think about how many careers were completely derailed in many cases before they even started because of this. Think about the cultural consequences of having flooded the market with legions of underqualified workers at companies that, and these aren't just any companies. companies that make our jets and fly our planes and design our electronics. This is a massive

and unprecedented catastrophe. Nothing like this has happened in modern history. At the same time, we do need to recognize that this discrimination is artificial. There is no consensus in this country that white people aren't worth hiring. Most businesses seem to understand that discrimination against white people is immoral, not to mention bad for business or both. Whatever the case, they're not doing it. It's the corporations at the very top of the heap, the ones with the most power, and the lobbyists who can control public policy, they're the ones who are pushing this. They're the ones driving the overt anti-white racism that we now see every day and everywhere in society. You know, yesterday we talked about this anti-white bias in the courts, but really

it's all over the place. It's the reason why white people can't get jobs in many cases. The reason why many white people are unable to provide for their families, they fall into despair, and die of suicide and drug overdoses at a rate that would have been unfathomable just a few years ago? Bloomberg didn't make any of that clear, but that's exactly what is happening. Now, why is it happening? I mean, why are these corporations pursuing this anti-white, anti-capitalist flagrantly immoral agenda of mass racial discrimination? What possible explanation can there be for this? Well, if you look at Bloomberg's website, there's some suggestion of an explanation.

Bloomberg boasts that in 2020, as people were dying and police stations were being torched to honor the legacy of blessed St. George Floyd, Bloomberg reached out to the corporations in the S&P 100, quote, that summer Bloomberg News reporters and editors started a project to hold companies accountable to these pledges by trying to collect data on workforce diversity that's usually kept private. We asked the entire S&P 100 to share information on their worker demographics. We targeted those companies because they employ millions of people in the U.S. and they're influential, lucrative, and sit across a broad swel wealth of industries. In other words, as BLM writers lit major cities in this country on fire, Bloomberg reached out to companies like Apple and Amazon, told them that they'd better stop hiring white people, told them that we're going to be watching you, better not be hiring any white people. That was the import of what they were saying. And now three years later, Bloomberg is gloating that these companies did in fact stop hiring white people. But they're not mentioning that they pressured these companies to do that. So this is activism, journalism at its finest. case study in it. Now, this is not to blame Bloomberg for what's happening, of course. Bloomberg was

merely taking advantage of a vulnerability that already existed. They were one of many major media outlets that saw that major corporations feared one thing above all else, which is that there would be an article written accusing them of being racist. The biggest corporations in the United States were more worried about being called bigots than they were about hiring competent employees. Bloomberg saw a market opportunity and they took it. And that's why they're celebrating right now. Now, for the rest of us, for people who care about the future of this country, this isn't just a wake-up call. It's a reason to ask every company in the S&P 100 where they stand on the information that Bloomberg is currently reporting. Do they also hate hundreds of millions of American citizens solely on the basis of how they look?

Or do they recognize that what's happening here is a grave injustice, one that is endangering everyone in the country. and ruining millions of lives. Corporations need to start answering those questions. And if they can, it's time to treat them the same way Joe Biden's DOJ treats quote-unquote white supremacists. We need to stop buying their products. We need to stop putting up with their holistic approaches to anti-white racial discrimination.

It's time instead to destroy them. Now let's get to our five headlines. For most homeowners, window replacement It isn't something they've done before. And for many, it isn't something they want to do, but rather something they have to do. If you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news. You can now get a free in-home window consultation and a free price quote from Renewal by Anderson. Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer experience possible

through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive product. Right now, renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable, quality, affordable, windows or patio doors for $0 down, zero payments, and zero interest for a year. Text Walsh to $200,300 for your free consultation to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door. These savings won't last long. So be sure to check it out by texting Walsh to 200, 300. That's Walsh to 200, 300. Texting, privacy, policy, terms, conditions, posted at textplan.us. Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages. message and data rates apply, reply, reply stop, to opt out, go to window appointment now.com for full offer

details. Staying on the topic of racial justice for a moment, a bunch of people in Philly last night looted a bunch of stores in the name of racial justice. And Fox News has the report, Philadelphia. Police responded to popular retailers like Apple, the Apple store, Lulu Lemon, and Foot Locker, after they were allegedly being ravaged by swarms of looters taking over the city of Brotherly Love Tuesday evening at about. 8 p.m. Tuesday, police responded to reports of large crowds of juveniles, allegedly looting

stores in the center of city business quarter of the 9th District. The police spokesperson and said, quote, in a proactive measure, officers from the 9th District stopped a group of males dressed in black attire and wearing masks at the intersection of 17th and Chestnut Street. As of midnight on Wednesday, police confirmed between 15 and 20 people were arrested during the looting and at least two firearms were covered. As the officers were speaking with these individuals, they began to receive reports of looting at the footlocker on Chestnut Street. And a short time later, there was looting at the Apple store. So we just talked about how these corporations in an effort to appease the mob and to show off their, you know, anti-racist bona fides, they put basically a total ban on hiring

white people, which is, you would think, an extreme measure. But does that let them off the hook when it's time for the racial justice warriors to start looting again? Are they going to say, oh, no, Apple's cool. They don't even hire white people anymore. No, of course not. So this is what happening. I'm also not sure why Fox uses the word alleged in here like three times, because there's no alleged involved.

They looted. It's on video, but it's not an allegation. A bunch of people allegedly looted this store that we're watching them loot right now. And there are many videos of this. Here's one of the videos. We'll put this up for you to see. All right, so that's them.

We can pause it. Look at all those hungry, desperate people. You know, that's why, right there, in that particular video, they're looting a liquor store, and they're just coming out with, you know, fistfuls of vodka, another liquor, just like whole hand. You saw one guy walk out with like five handles of, vodka? Because he's desperate and starving and he needs to feed his family. He's just,

he's got to feed his family vodka. That's what he's feeding them, apparently. Now, I have to say when I see stuff like this, and we see it so often, I'm tempted to say, as so many people do now, and I'm tempted to join in and say, hey, if these people want to destroy their own community, if they're so dedicated to the mission of making their own neighborhoods into unlivable crime-ridden dumps, then fine. I mean, have at it. Go ahead, if that's what you want to do. You want to create racial justice by making your own life worse? Godspeed. Congratulations, you damned morons, if that's what you want. Because that's all that this is, ultimately, all the looting and writing we've seen in recent years.

It's all one giant act of self-immolation. And you know, the attitude, the nimbie attitude, not in my backyard, that attitude gets a bad rap, but it's actually inappropriate attitude. That's how everyone should feel. Like, not in my backyard. I don't want that here. If you live somewhere, then that's how you should feel about where you live. And yeah, I mean, ideally, you don't want bad things to happen anywhere, but if they're going to happen, you don't want them to happen in your backyard. you live somewhere and you don't want the community where you live to turn into a cesspool. That makes sense. That's a healthy attitude. But the attitude you see on display in any of these rioting videos is the opposite. It's like, yes, in my backyard. Yes, I want my own community to be the worst place on earth.

Yes, let's ensure that. Let's chase out all the jobs and all the businesses and everything and leave us with nothing and then complain about food deserts. That's a good plan. And again, the temptation is to say, well, okay, have it your way. But the reason I can't fully write it off that way and go about my day is, first of all, the people actively and deliberately destroying their own communities won't take any responsibility for it, of course. They do everything they can to make their neighborhoods so awful, as awful as possible, and then they blame everybody else for it. Like I just mentioned the food, like looting, finding all the stores around and restaurants and places that

provide grocery stores that provide food, robbing them, looting them, destroying them, and then turning around and saying, it's a food desert. Why won't anyone come here and open up business and sell food? So there's the refusal to take responsibility, but mainly the main point here, as I've said before, is that I want, you know, I want justice. I value justice. Most people do. normal people do. And that's why when we see videos like this, even though it's happening in a community that we don't live in, and even though most of people in those communities either voted for it and chose it that way or are actively participating in it, so you don't have a lot of sympathy for them, still it makes us mad. And it should make us mad because we want justice.

We want these thugs to be punished because we value justice. And we also know how easy it would be to put a stop to this. It's incredibly easy. Like, you could do two things. Okay, first, you can explicitly empower businesses to protect their property with lethal force if necessary. That's what I would do. If I was in charge, I would say to business, the first thing I would do is say to business owners, listen, your business is your livelihood. It's your life. It's your children's lives. Mobs of hooligans who come in to ransack your business, they're putting your life at risk. And they have no right to do that. that. So feel free to act in self-defense. I'm going to give you a lot of leeway. Okay, you do what

you feel you need to do when those people come in there looking to steal all the liquor off the show. Do what you feel you need to do. And we're not going to second guess you. That's one thing you could do. And then the looters would know that they're putting their lives, they're putting their own lives at risk. And some of them are so dumb they'd do it anyway. But a good portion of them, you know, they're going to think, it's not worth that. The other thing you can do is you can take one of these videos and you can, because I know they're going to tell us, in fact, we read in the article that 20 people were arrested. The police are very proud of themselves. We arrested 20 people.

Well, 20 people. Why wasn't it like 200 people? Why didn't you arrest all of them is really the question? But it's not so much arresting them. It's what happens after. So you can arrest people all you want. And even arresting 20 people, that might be enough, actually. If you've got 200 people looting and you arrest 20 of them, that might be enough,

depending on what happens to them after you arrest them. And the problem is that most of the time you arrest them and then they're back on the street literally the next day and they never spend one day in prison. So what you could do is you could look at these videos and you could identify, you know, maybe it's just 20 people. And you arrest them. And then you put them in prison for 20 years. It doesn't matter how old they are. Doesn't matter who they are. Doesn't matter their age.

Charge them all as adults. I don't care. The 17-year-old doing it, you're getting charged as an adult. And you just completely destroy their lives. You make an example of them. You're just, okay, you know, you did this. Now you're going to be in jail until you're 40. Congratulations.

I hope that handle of vodka was worth it to you. Your life is basically over now. And then, and you pass down the sentence, and you get the video of them weeping and wailing, as the judge tells them that they're going to be in prison for 20 years. And they start crying about it and saying, all I did was, I just took one thing. And then you spread that video around. you make sure everybody sees it. Then you make an example out of them.

And then guess what? Most of these people, they're not going to think it's worth it to go in and grab that bottle of liquor. It's not worth the price. Some of them still will. And then you give them even harsher sentences. And that's what you do.

If you're serious about justice. If you're serious about maintaining order, if you're serious about have, if you want to have a civilization, that is what you do. but the people in charge want the opposite. So that's the problem. Everything I'm saying is incredibly obvious.

And it doesn't even really need to be said because the people, it's not like the people in charge, they know this. They know that everyone, the law enforcement, the courts, and I put the, and this is more on the courts than it is law enforcement. Because law enforcement, they can't, you know, they can arrest you, but they can't do anything about what happens afterwards. So the people in charge, the court system, they know all. They know that they could easily put an end to all of this. Like overnight they could do it. But they don't want to because this is the world they want us all to live in. All right.

This is from NBC News. In the most recent episode of Dak Shepard's podcast Armchair Expert, Jonathan Van Ness, broke down in tears while defending the rights of transgender kids. Shepard and Van Ness engaged in a lighthearted conversation about a range of of topics before they began talking about the New York Times. When Van Ness said the publication should not be considered left-leaning, Shepard responded with, it absolutely is. Van Ness then said the publication shares anti-trans content.

After the two went back and forth on the topic, Shepard said, some people are very uncomfortable about teenagers transitioning. They're challenging that. How do we know that that person's not going to change their mind? Shepard said to even question it makes you an enemy. I don't think that's the way forward. And first of all, who is Jonathan Vennan? Van Ness. Is anybody now? Not that it matters. Jonathan Van Ness is a hairstylist. Okay.

And TV personality. And so he's on this podcast. This is going viral, this conversation. Going back to the article says, Van Ness said that it felt like they were talking to their dad. They then went on to discuss how transgender athletes do not have the competitive advantage that some claim they do. Sheppard responded by asking whether the inclusion of transgender athletes, is safe or fair for cis women in the sports. The two then discuss the topic for over 20 minutes. Okay, first of all, if you're confused by the way that this article is written, and it's not just because you have no idea who this Van Ness guy is,

well, the reason you're confused is that Van Ness identifies apparently as non-binary, which means, of course, that when you speak about him or you write about him, you have to speak and write in a way that's completely incoherent and impossible to understand. I mean this sentence. Van Ness said it felt like they were talking to their dad. They then went on to discuss how transgender athletes do not have the competitive advantage that some people claim they do. Okay. So you've got the word they that appears in those two sentences three times. And based on the way language works, this would mean that Van Ness and Dax Shepard are brothers because they have the same dad. That's what the sentence, they were talking about their dad.

It sounded like they were talking about their dad. And then they went on to talk about something else. Based on the way language works, that means that they have the same dad. They were talking about their dad. So both of them, them, the two of them, are talking about their dad. They're brothers. Dax Shepard and this guy are brothers. Well, but they're not.

They're not brothers. Because in one sentence, they refers to a single individual and in the very next sentence it refers to both people. Now, we used to call this bad writing and incorrect grammar, but now we just call it affirmation. As for everything else, first there's the claim by Van Ness that trans women, men, don't have a competitive advantage. And he actually laid this out recently in an Instagram video. And I want to listen to some. We only need to listen to the first piece of this, but go ahead and play that. Let's talk about transphobia in sports.

There's so many conversations around trans inclusion in sports. We have state houses all over the United States that are passing bills to make sure that no trans kids are allowed to play sport at any level in their state. And I just think that this is a huge travesty. The science that we have now says that transgender women do not hold an unfair biological advantage over cis women. So that's what the science says. But let's just say, you know, now what so much of the rhetoric is

is as well, if someone has gone through a male puberty and they've ever experienced that male puberty, then they will always be unfair to play women's sports. And we have to protect women's sports. So we can't have anybody who's experienced a male puberty in women's sports if it's a trans woman. So, okay, let's say that that's true, even though the science does not support that. But let's say that that is true. So now, though, we have in dozens of states in the United States that have outlawed gender affirming care for trans kids.

So if there was a young trans girl who said, who let's say wanted to be a figure skater or a gymnast or a golfer or whatever the hell, she wouldn't be able to access the hormone blockers that would make it so that she would not go through a puberty. Okay. So do you see how you have? All right. Shut up. Just every part of that is just from the very beginning, everything that he's saying is just is a total lie. And I know that, you know, you might watch a video like that with a guy like that and think, well, I mean, this guy, no one's listening to this guy. No one's who cares what he's saying. There is no, obviously this guy probably has an IQ of 65 and who cares. But people do listen.

It's one of the big cultural problems that people do listen to a guy like this. You know, they got a lot of Instagram followers, people listen to that. They hear a claim like that and they believe it. All the claims. So from the very beginning, well, they're trying to pass laws ensuring that trans people can't play sports at any level. That law doesn't exist anywhere. Literally no one anywhere has passed. or even proposed a law like that.

Such a law has never been discussed. No one is saying that we should pass a law banning trans-identified people from playing in sports. What if there's a trans girl who wants to be a figure skater? He can be a figure skater. No one's stopping him. Nothing is changing at all. Trans-identified people can play sports at any level.

The only difference is that you just play according to what your sex is. You play according to what biological category you belong to, which is just another way of saying that trans-identify people are simply being expected to follow the same program and the same rules that everyone else is following and has followed since forever. And then we hear that there's that, oh, the new science. Did you know that? Well, you know, the science now says that, quote-unquote, trans women don't have an advantage. Oh, really? The science says that? This new science has just dropped. Did you know that? Yeah, it's the hottest new thing on the street. right now, this new science that just came out. Some new science came out, and apparently it turns out

that everything we thought we knew about the biology of the sexes is wrong, according to the science. Can he quote any of this science? Can you explain it? No, he can't, because it's just not, it's total nonsense. Just making it up. And this is what they do. So this is what he brought into the conversation with Dak Shepard, and then he started crying, and here's a clip of that. 99% of kids who want to play sports, like, aren't trying to go to the Olympics. Right. Honestly, I just, I wanted to come, like, chat about my podcast, like, other shows. Yeah, we're going to do that.

We're going to do that. I did not intend at all to get into a debate with you about this. I didn't want that at all. I adore you. I think you're hysterical and talented, and I love that you're an activist. I could just, like, cry because I'm, like, so tired of having to, like, fight for little kids because they just want to be included. I wish that people were as passionate about little kids being able to.

to like be included or grow up as they were about fictitious women's fairness in sports. I have to tell you, I am very tired. Yeah, I'm sure you are passionate about little kids. You're tired. I'm so tired, he says, this is what these people do. They lie about everything. They're totally foolish about everything. Everything.

Nothing they say is true. They advocate for the most horrific things imaginable. I mean, what he's actually defending is the butchery of children, castration, sterilization of children. It's not just, it's not just indefensible. It's among the most indefensible things in the world. Okay, you know, trying to defend this. It's like defending cannibalism.

I mean, it's defending outright barbarism. And he pretends that he wants to protect kids. He does the whole think of the children routine. But all he's thinking about is how he wants them sterilized and mutilated. I just care about the children so much, he says. When he wants them physically abused. All of that, and then rather than defend it, because he can't defend it, he starts crying. Because all these people have is lies, well, are lies and emotional manipulation.

That is the whole tool shed. Every tool in the shed lies and emotional manipulation. This is the whole routine every time. say a whole bunch of nonsense, and then when someone slightly pushes back, I'm so tired, I don't want to talk about this anymore. Tired of what? What the hell have you gone through in your life? Tired? Like, look at you. You in every way have the appearance of a man who has never experienced even one moment of bullying or persecution in your entire life. the fact that you can run around calling yourself non-binary and dressing the way you do and carrying on the way you do it it's a pretty good indication that there's that a lack of affirmation and a lack of support these are not your problems your problem is very much on the opposite end

of that spectrum and then you have dax shepherd who once again how many times have we seen this exact thing we just played we had the clip from trevor noah in the daily show clip that was going viral last week. We played it, and it was the same thing, where you have someone, like a relatively normal person who understands that this is all crazy. And like, sort of very meekly, very gingerly, cautiously pushes back a little bit. And then the other person starts crying and doing that whole routine, and then they back away. Oh, never, never mind. I'd love, you're so amazing. I'd love you so much. Everything you say is actually correct. Never mind. Never mind. I reject all of science and biology and reality itself. I reject reality itself for your sake, because you're crying. I don't want you

to cry. It's why it just doesn't work. I've been saying this all along. It doesn't work. Trying to be gentle and trying to be nice and polite, it doesn't work. I wish it did. it. Okay? If it was possible to be nice, I prefer to be nice and polite. It might surprise you to learn that. I prefer to be nice and polite if I can be. I'd much rather be that way if I can. It doesn't work with these people. You can't. There is no nice, polite way to approach it. And that's why I've been shouting this from the rooftops for years. And slowly but surely, people started to, understand that when dealing with the left in general, but especially on this issue, trans, LGBT, transing the kids, that whole world of issues, being nice and polite just doesn't work. They will eat you alive if that's how you try to approach it. Eat you alive in their way by being pathetic cry bullies. The only attitude that works is just look them in the eye and say, everything you're saying

is nonsense, here's why. And then they start crying and say, I don't care that you're crying. I'm so tired. This is making me cry. Oh, good. Okay. What are you crying for? You're pathetic. Like, grow up. You're a grown man sitting over there crying because we're having a debate. What the hell kind of person are you? That's disgusting. It's repulsive to me that you're responding that way. That's what Dak should have said. There's no way yet. If he would have said that, he would have earned at least one lifelong podcast fan in me. All right. Let's see. One other thing before we get to the next segment.

Collider has this. So this is, you know, I've seen this story, and I've been trying to get some confirmation for it. And I haven't, I don't know. I don't even know if this is true or not. But it says over the years, it's been said that laughter is the best medicine in the modern, well, okay, I don't need any of that. Who cares?

I don't need to read that. The article is basically that they're coming up with a reboot of the office. That's the claim anyway. So I've seen this reported, it's all over the headlines that they're doing a reboot of the office. And then I've tried to, not that I've spent a lot of time researching this very important topic, but I've wondered, where is that coming from? Who said that they're doing a reboot? And I haven't quite found that. But that's the claim anyway. It's not a big shock. Because, of course, as we know, Hollywood has completely run out of ideas. I mean, that didn't

happen recently. They've been running on fumes. They've been running on creative fumes for really decades now. And so now they want to reboot the office, which doesn't make any sense on multiple levels. And the first level where it makes no sense is that the office is already a reboot. There's the UK office, and then that show ended. And that was a show that was a show that actually knew how to, you know, like tell the story, get the jokes across, and then get out. That was two seasons. Two seasons of the original office was two seasons long. And each, I think each season was like six episodes.

Look, there was like 12 or 30 episodes total for the whole show. Could have kept going. But they said, we've told the story. We don't need to keep going. There's not a whole lot else to say here. We got the point across. Then it was rebooted with the office. And that was funny for three and a half seasons.

And then it just fell off a cliff and it kept going for another six seasons or something. And now they want to do it. And then they already had offshoot, like parks and recreation. So they had kind of like these sort of offshoot-related cousin-type shows. And now they want to reboot. They want to reboot the reboot. But of course, the main reason why this is a terrible idea is that, as many people have pointed out, I'm certainly not the first. But a show like that simply just can't exist in modern society.

Now, it can exist. Like some of these shows, they can be in films and things. they can be sort of grandfathered in because they already are there and they're part of the zeitgeist and they're part of the culture. And so, you know, and so they're allowed to continue sort of existing in memory. But there's just no way that something like that could be made, could actually be made now. It could do it. It's like a movie like Mrs. Doubtfire or something. That's out there.

No one has circled back to cancel it yet. Lots of people in the 90s when they were growing up saw that movie. Could that exact movie be made now? Hell no. A movie where the whole joke is that a guy's dressing up like a woman? It's like it's funny. We're laughing at him. Which is, you know, back historically, you know, if Hollywood had a plot line where a guy's dressing up like a woman, it was always, that's ridiculous.

It's crazy. Let's laugh at it. This is like a clown. This person is a clown now doing this for our amusement. So you can't do that anymore. And you can't have the office anymore because they're telling jokes that are related to race and ethnicity and sexual orientation. And, you know, everyone's kind of, Michael Scott's the butt of the joke. But everyone's kind of the butt of the joke.

And you're having fun with all these different things. And it just can't exist anymore. Humor cannot exist in this society, unfortunately. Let's get to you. Was Walsh wrong? This year has been. unbelievably busy for me so far, but that doesn't mean I've neglected my responsibility of stocking my swag shack over a DailyWire.com slash shop. I'm out here pouring blood, sweat, and tears into

secret projects like Dancing with the Stars, and you probably didn't even know that we sell candles now, but we do. Candles are not one of the special projects, to be clear, but don't let that stop you from getting the What Is a Candle candle with a sweet and refreshing smell. It's exactly what one would imagine a candle probably smells like. There's that and so much more in my collection. So head on over to dailywire.com slash shop. Frederick Oskerson with a comment about the naked attraction full frontal new dating show. We talked about in the Daily Cancellation yesterday that is now coming to HBO Max. Well, it's on HBO Max right now.

And unsurprisingly, I'm not a fan of the fact that this show exists. I don't think that it should. Frederick says with also an unsurprising comment, you're a typical American prude. Stay with politics and the gender problems. It's a fun show to watch. Been airing here in Europe for a long time. It's not the Stone Age anymore.

I think that last comment is pretty funny because... So it's not the stone... So what is this, Frederick? This is a... To you, this is a sign of cultural advancement and sophistication. A show where you take naked people and put them in boxes and then have someone else standing there and judging each body part,

you know, like judging the faceless body parts of naked, nameless people to decide who you want to copulate with, that to you is a, what, that's a sign of, well, it's not the Stone Age anymore, it's modern society. That's how advanced we are. This is advancement. I mean, the funny thing is that it's actually quite barbaric and primitive.

You know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, deciding on a mate that way by just assessing their naked body. They don't even have a face or a name. I mean, it's a lot of things, but I would also call it like pretty savage and primitive and barbaric. And then, yes, it's you're a prude. So it's also funny to see the way that the prude goalpost has moved over, you know, through the years. So you're always, you're always, if you just, if you, what we find is that if you try, try to draw the line anywhere at all, then you're always just a prude.

Which is interesting to me. Bob Mack says, in full disclosure, I'm black but conservative. M.W. is my favorite cultural critic bar. None. 99% agree, but not here. Three brothers minding their own business are provoked by an idiot with a fake gun. Gets beat up when these guys become insatiably enraged. Manslaughter is fair. Tom says on the same case, the case of Ethan Liming, which we started the show with yesterday. Tom says, the men shouldn't have stomped Ethan to death, but he definitely deserved a whoopin.

Well, at least you would say they, at least you agree they shouldn't have done that. Yeah, they shouldn't have stomped him to death. Yeah, you think so, Tom? One, it's a crime of passion, in my opinion. Two, you don't know what liquid could be in those pellets. And three, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, don't shoot people with stuff, and this never happens. Look, first of all, even if you were to argue that men, manslaughter is fair for the reasons that are laid out here that they were mad,

they didn't get convicted to manslaughter. That's the point. Manslaughter was a down. They originally charged with murder, and then it was downgraded to manslaughter, and they couldn't even get convicted of that. So if I agreed with both, with everything that Bob and Tom are saying here, if I agreed and say, oh, it's a crime of passion, it's manslaughter, they didn't get convicted of that.

They beat someone to death, all three of them, and didn't, the fact that he died is not factored in to the conviction. They were just convicted of assault. So, in other words, if they had beat, if they had just come up and punched him in the face and told him to knock it off, and then he was fine, he just had a bloody lip or something and went about his day, they went about his day. You know, they both went about their days. That would be assault.

And so, you know, the charge would have been the same. basically what we're being told is that the fact that he was killed and stomped on while lying on the ground is not even relevant, which is crazy. And I also have to say that, look, call me old fashion. I am from the Stone Age, remember. But I don't think the fact that you're angry is in and of itself an excuse or necessarily, even a mitigating factor when you beat somebody to death. Like, I'm sure that you were angry.

I don't think that you beat someone to death unless you're angry. But I don't see that as an excuse and I don't see it really as a mitigating factor. The only thing that could justify what happened is if they felt their lives were in danger. And so they attacked him, you know, in their mind in self-defense. And in the midst of the struggle, he sadly lost his life. life. And then if that were the case, then I would say, look, yeah, I mean, you'd say to Ethan Lyman, you provoked it, you started it, you know, which is true. And, and they thought that, you know, they didn't know that it was a fake gun. I mean, they thought that they were,

that their lives were in jeopardy and they defended themselves and this happened. But that's not the case. Remember, first of all, he's using a gun. I think it's very relevant to know what the gun looks like. He's using a gun that looks like a Nerf gun. It's very clearly a fake gun. It's not real. It's clearly a toy. And they also got hit with the water pellet. So, like, they know that, you know, they know what's going on. And in any case, when they go up, it's their right to confront him. At first, they kind of run away because they think that they're under attack.

And then they circle back and they go after him. And that part of it, okay, you know, the guy runs up and he's shooting the water pellets out. You confront him. You've ever right to do that. But then they just beat him mercilessly. And while he's on the ground, they stomp on him. and to me if anything should get you convicted of

not just manslaughter but murder it's that part of it when the person is on the ground and you start stomping them now we're well beyond self-defense there's not self-defense anymore like there's no such thing as a stomp in self-defense that means the person's on the ground already and fully like at your mercy when you start stomping them so that's not self-defense

or anything close to it, and that has gone way beyond what could be justified as, you know, anger, passion. That is just, like, gratuitous. And now it is you want to inflict as much damage as you possibly can on this now defenseless person just for the sake of it. And they should be in jail for the rest of their lives. This is another, you know, example of a time when an example should be made of somebody. Because you see this all the time and these videos that unfortunately circulate on Twitter and other social media platforms where people are being randomly assaulted. And you always see this.

There's a very familiar move now. Someone's getting assaulted. They end up on the ground. And then the stomping starts. Like just kicking someone in the head while they're on the ground. The court should come down very hard on that. You kick somebody in the head when they're on the ground. You're going to jail for a long time.

But that again is if you actually cared about justice and law and order, which they don't. Who doesn't love a good Columbus Day sale? Some folks don't even want you to celebrate Columbus Day. While at Jeremy's Razors, we want you to discover the new world of woke-free shaving. Get $20 off, select Jeremy's Razors products and bundles, including the Precision 5 starter kit, the founder kit, the beard kit, the skincare bundle, and more. Be a pioneer for a better shave and better hygiene. Don't wait. Make the switch today.

Get yours at jeremy'sraisers.com. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today we go back to the Atlantic, which has recently become very fertile soil for the daily cancellation. Last week we had to cancel a woman who wrote an article for the publication trying to explain why nobody should care about a woman's body count. And today we have a not entirely unrelated subject, this time written by a woman named Annie Lowry. And the headline poses a question, which is this. Is single parenthood the problem? Now, if I were the author, the text of the article would be very short.

In fact, it would be one word and the answer would be yes. Single parenthood is the problem, or it is at least a problem, a very big one. But Lowry has more to say than that, and not everything she says is wrong. She begins, quote, the most heavily anticipated economics book of the year makes a radical argument. Having married parents is good for kids. I know, I know it seems like a joke, right? Of course, having to involve parents living in a stable home together is good for kids. Anyone who is considered having children with a partner or whatever child themselves must know that.

But for years, academics studying poverty, mobility, and family structures have avoided that self-evident truth. The economist Melissa Kearney writes in The Two-Parent Privilege released this week, and while the wanks avoided the topic, the rise of single-parent households in America exacerbated inequality and contributed to astonishingly high rates of child poverty. Now, this part is all true, of course, but there's much more to say. In fact, this is the whole story right here. It would at least make for a more interesting article in the Atlantic, I would think. Everyone knows it's better for kids to be raised by two parents than by one. That's how things are naturally set up.

Every child has two biological parents. No child has ever had one or three, only two, which is a pretty good indication that they are supposed to be raised by two. And those two, just to be clear, are a man and a woman. This is the most natural thing. Or I should say, it's nature in its elevated, civilized state. Now, in the animal kingdom, in most cases, babies are conceived. the father runs off after copulation, and the babies are born and they're raised only by their mothers,

and usually only for a short time before they're out on their own. So single parenthood becoming more common and accepted in human society is a sign the society is devolving. People are behaving more like cats and crocodiles than human beings. Single parenthood is literally animalistic. It's what you find in the animal kingdom. It's a family arrangement that you can find in the forest or in the jungle or out on the Serengeti. It's not meant for human society. We are not beasts.

We are people. And we're supposed to raise our children both parents, father and mother. Now, obviously we're speaking here on the broad societal level. Society devolves and it becomes more animalistic when it accepts and promotes single parenthood as a positive good as equal to the nuclear family or even better than it. Now, that isn't to say that obviously every single parent themselves has done something wrong necessarily. If a child is raised by one parent because the other parent died, for example, then that's a situation where you have no choice but to make do. And those parents deserve a lot of credit and a lot of respect. The same for a situation where a child is raised by one parent because the other abandoned the family.

The one who has left is a... Now, the one who left the family and abandoned the family is acting like an animal. the one who is left is doing the best they can to compensate. The trouble is that many kids are being raised in single-parent households because both parents are irresponsible and selfish, or because the single parent chose to break up the family for no good reason. This is why the universal celebration of single moms as if they're all victims put in a difficult spot through no fault of their own

has always been horribly misguided. Some of them are victims who are putting a difficult spot through no fault of their own, but certainly not all. Probably not the majority. But as the author notes, the so-called experts, the academics, the economists, the college professors, the politicians, and so on, have for many years ignored or outright denied these basic realities. It's just one of the great many basic realities that these people have tried to cover up or distract us from. They tie themselves into pretzels to try and explain why it's good actually for kids to have only one parent raising them instead of two. They try desperately to pretend that all family arrangements are equally valid, equally good,

equally likely to lead to well-adjusted children who can thrive as functional adults in society. On this topic, as on so many other topics, the experts use their alleged expertise to lead society deeper into confusion and self-destruction. And now they have the gall to complain that people no longer trust the expert class. Well, how can we trust them? You know what I mean? They've only been horrendously wrong about everything my entire life. They've only tried to tear human civilization apart at the seams.

Other than that, they've earned our trust. And we could spend longer analyzing all this, but the author moves on, and we get to this part. But it is worth asking, what good comes of pointing out that many people could use a cohabitating partner and that many kids could use a second-involved parent? Kearney has written an important, careful book, on a topic that is an elephant in the room. As she puts it, still, I'm not sure anyone has any idea what to do with the elephant. Kernie's own research and the research of other scholars convinced her that the rise of single parenthood wasn't important and overlooked social phenomenon, a key to understanding the country's

low rates of mobility and high rates of poverty. Well, I have to say, no, it was not overlooked. Okay, the problem of a single parenthood was not overlooked. It was overlooked by the Atlantic, perhaps, and by the rest of the mass media, and by those experts we talked about a moment ago, but some people, the social conservatives, specifically, we've been talking about this and warning about it for decades. It wasn't overlooked by us. It's just that we have been shouted down and ignored for decades.

Now the people who ignored us are slowly but surely coming around to the realization that we were right about this. Like we are right about literally everything. Okay, the social conservatives have been right about every cultural issue since forever. We've been right about everything. We are always right, always. It's just that, you know, and eventually on every topic, eventually the experts come around and they say, you know, I think maybe it should be this way instead.

But they won't acknowledge that we were right. They always come around to the realization that we were right, but they never say you were right. Because they want to continue to demonize the very people who arrived at the conclusions 50 years ago that they're just arriving at now. In any case, the article continues laying out more of the economic and social problems that come with single parenthood, and most of what it says again is correct. But then we get to the final paragraph, which says this.

Quote, the real elephant in the room, I think, is that the United States doesn't want to contemplate, let alone create a policy infrastructure that supports single parenthood. It doesn't want to make sure that kids thrive with a single earner in the home. It won't do this, even though it seems obvious that a large share of children are going to grow up with one parent going forward. and even though we aren't realistically going to increase the marriage rate among lower income Americans. We don't want to build a society where children are seen as a collective gift and a collective responsibility. It's not single parenthood that's failing these kids. We all are. No, it's single parenthood that's failing them. We aren't failing the kids. Okay. What's this we stuff? Speak for yourself. I can speak for myself, at least, because we includes me.

and I'm not failing them. If there's a child in a single parent home across the street because the mom had sex with some random guy outside of marriage and they both had no interest in marrying in order to create a stable home for that child, then that child has been failed, but not by me. If he's in a single parent home because the mom got bored with her marriage and decided to rip the family apart

so that she could go off and find herself or whatever, then again, the child has been failed, but not by me. And if he's in a single parent home, because the dad is a deadbeat who ran out on the family. Then once again, that child has been failed, but not by me. And not by you, and not by us, and not by we. The child's mother failed him, or his father failed him. Or in most cases, they both failed him. 100% of the failure comes from some combination of the mom and the dad. Now, as always, the left wants to remove personal responsibility from this conversation and from every conversation, but you

you can't. Because ultimately, there is no solution to the single-parent problem outside of adults making better choices. If they will not make better choices, then nothing will get better. That's the reality. All we can do, if the rate and volume of bad choices doesn't change, then all we can do is try our best to deal with the mess that these selfish jerks are creating. And some of that will involve policy changes, yes, but the policies should not be. tailored to support single parenthood, rather the policy should encourage and promote marriage and two-parent households. Okay, we've done more than enough to support single-parenthood, too much, in fact. We need to support two-parent households in order to eventually have fewer of the kinds of households

that are creating all of these problems. Are children a collective gift? Sure. Are they a collective responsibility? I mean, yeah, in a broad sense, but there is a collective gift. But there is a collective gift. a hierarchy of responsibility for each individual. And your responsibility starts closest to you and it branches out from there. This means the first responsibility you have is to your own family, your own children. You cannot go out and be reckless and irresponsible and then expect society to take care of you and your kids because society is comprised of individuals. And each individual has a list of priorities, and neither you or your children will ever be at the top of it. That's not because they're selfish. It's because they have their priorities straight.

And they have to take care of their own families first. That's how it's set up. So it's up to you first and foremost to make sure that your children have what they need. And what they need first and foremost is a mom and a dad in the home. Society can't provide that. And the government can't provide it. Only you can. And that has to be the first of first step. Annie Lowry of the Atlantic seems to get close to this realization, but she doesn't make it all the way because these people never do. And for that reason, she is today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed.