The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 762 - The Empty People

Episode Date: July 27, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we are witnessing an infinite expansion of gender and sexuality identities, though all of the new identities seem to be repetitions of each other. Why is this happening? Where is it coming from? I have a theory. Also Five Headlines. Democrats begin their latest “investigation” into the events of January 6th. California introduces vaccine mandates. John Oliver pushes reparations. And new polls show that most Americans don’t think men should compete against women in women’s sports. And yet that’s exactly what’s happening. Why? Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Walls show, we are witnessing an infinite expansion of gender and sexuality identities, though all of the new identities seem to be repetitions of each other. Why is this happening exactly? Where is it coming from? I have a theory that I'll share with you. Also, five headlines. Democrats begin their latest investigation, quote, unquote, into the events of January 6th. California introduces vaccine mandates, and John Oliver pushes for reparations.

And also, new polls show that most Americans don't think that men should compete against women in women's sports. And yet that's exactly what's happening. Why? We'll talk about all of that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show. I'd like to start today with a video, not unlike so many others that we've played on this show. You know generally what to expect at this point. A person of unclear sex rambling incoherently and parading out a whole encyclopedia of new gender and sexuality labels that all seem to mean the same thing and nothing at the same time.

And if that's what you're expecting, well, you're exactly right. This is the kind of thing I would normally say for the end of the show. but there is a larger point to be made here, I think. So first, I must subject you to the video, and here it is. Non-a-sexual-Romantic and Alosexual-Aromantic are not always interchangeable. Non-a-sexual, a-romantic includes identities such as my own. I'm not asexual, but I'm not alosexual either. My experiences are going to be very different from an alosexual-aromantic persons.

I think it's just important if you're an ally who's talking about aromantic issues, If you're talking about alosexual aromantic issues, make sure to say alosexual aromantic. There is nothing wrong with that term. Just saying non-a-sexual aromantic also includes other aromantic people who might not experience sexual attraction but still don't identify as asexual. Just something to keep in mind. Indeed. Indeed, I will keep that in mind. And thank you for that reminder.

I'd actually been thinking about these very issues recently. In fact, I was sitting around with some guys drinking beer and debating the finer distinctions between alosexual, aromantic, asexual, and non-asexual, aromantic. We had actually draw a four-ringed Venn diagram just to keep it straight, but now we know, and that is very good. So thank you for that. Now, for anyone confused, alosexual may sound like the name of a dinosaur from the late Jurassic period, but it's not.

You're thinking of allosaurus. An alosexual person is not an extinct reptile, nor is he necessarily attracted to them, though he could be. No, an alosexual, according to WebMD, means anyone who experiences sexual attraction. Yes, any sort of attraction at all makes you an alosexual. So even if you didn't want to be an alosexual, it didn't feel the need for an additional label to add on to your sexual orientation. You have it anyway. There it is.

Just take it and be grateful, you brat. As for the other labels just listed, an asexual person is somebody who allegedly experiences no attraction to anyone. However, an aromantic person is someone, again, I'm using WebMD here, a site that sometimes makes me think I'm dying, and at other times, like now, makes me wish I was. An aromantic person is someone who experiences no romantic attraction to others, but may still be sexually attracted. So someone who isn't very romantic, but is still sexual, may be considered aromantic. Every woman listening right now is thinking, oh, you mean like literally all men. Yes, perhaps. But we should note that aromantic people can not only still be sexually attractive, but also can experience, quote, intense loving feelings. So a sexual person who experiences

intense loving feelings towards another person, isn't that the same thing as being romantic? Perhaps again, but who cares? We're on a role here. Let's keep going. And please do not confuse aromantic people with demi-romantic people. Those are those who have romantic attraction only after forming an emotional bond with another person. And every man listening is now thinking, oh, you mean like literally all women. There's also lithe romantic or okoero romantic. These are people who experience romantic attraction

but don't want it to be returned. So they want to be romantically attracted to you, but they don't want you to feel anything to them, otherwise known as creepers. And don't forget gray romantics, those are people who experience romantic attraction sometimes, but not other times, otherwise known as everyone. And then there are quiro-romantic people who can't tell the difference between romantic and

platonic attraction. Once again, that simply describes every male member of the human species. Now, I know what you're thinking. What about pan-romantics? Well, you're either thinking that or something more along the lines of, please stop talking about this. Assuming it was the former, I can tell you that Healthline just published an article about panromanticism, which says, quote, panromantic and asexual are not synonymous.

They're two different identifiers with two different definitions. Someone on the asexuality spectrum could use both identifiers in order to best name their lived experience with romantic, panromantic, and sexual, asexual attraction. But identifying as one doesn't imply identifying as the other. While your sexual orientation names who you want to have sex with, if anyone, your romantic orientation names who you want to spend time with. Well, romantically, if anyone. Romantic orientation names who you feel a pull toward, who you desire to cuddle or make dinner with, and who you want to spend all your time with, explains gray sexual panromantic L. Rose, founder of asexuality

Spectrum Resource, Secret Lady Spider, and co-host of the Invisible Spectrum podcast. I don't even know what any of the words I'm using mean. Panromantic, I feel like I'm having a stroke as I read this. Panromantic is one of the many romantic orientations. Other romantic orientations include homo-romantic, heteronantic, and bi-romantic. Someone whose pan-romantic can experience romantic attraction to someone regardless of their gender, she explains. Okay. So that's the breaking news here. We've got sexual orientation, but also romantic orientation.

That's the latest thing, hot off the presses. Okay, just dropped romantic orientation. You may notice that the... explanations offered by these people always seem to do the opposite of what an explanation typically is meant to achieve? They explain things in order to make those things more confusing and obscure rather than less. That's nothing new. We know that there are dozens and dozens of sexual orientations, which combine with dozens and dozens of genders to create thousands of different variations, though the variations seem to be incredibly redundant describing the same basic

thing in different ways with differences that are more meaningless than subtle. We've talked many times about where this proliferation of identity labels comes from and why so many people become so obsessed with endlessly labeling themselves. But now I'd like to travel deeper. I don't know if I'd want to travel deeper, but I'm going to, into the mindset of these people, all the way into the dark cavernous maze of their convoluted egos. And see if we can't come up with a more complete answer. What really is going on here?

Because it is something significant and consequential. Why are so many people, especially young people, and not a small number of them, wasting their lives by trying to categorize themselves? I thought I was boring because I'll sit around on a Saturday organizing my fishing tackle. That's a fun Saturday to me. But these people, or even my sock drawer, as much of a stereotype as that is, I will do that. And I kind of enjoy it. But these people spend hours every day sifting through their own psyches and dividing themselves into smaller parts and putting each part into its own drawer with its own label.

What kind of a bizarre hobby is this? And again, why? Well, I think a few factors are converging to create this perfect storm of total nonsense. Many people today, of all ages, but especially those who grew up in the internet era, have spent their entire lives, including all of their formative years, staring blankly into screens. Now, this not only exposes them to all of these new contrived identities, but more importantly, often prevents them from developing any functional skills or hobbies outside of cyberspace. These are people who don't know how to do anything and don't desire to do anything,

unless it can be done by moving their thumbs across a screen or a video game controller. There are obviously exceptions to this general rule, but the fact is that teenagers today spend almost all of their leisure time on screens. And we all know that intellectually, but I think we often don't sit and really reflect on the implications of it. A report from a couple of years ago said that the average teen is using a screen seven hours a day, not including schoolwork. and I think that estimate is probably low, but assuming it's not, seven hours and then schoolwork, that's just every hour of the day.

There's no time for anything else. There's no time to do anything else or find any physical or creative outlets, which means there's also no time to develop anything like an authentic and unique personality. A person begins compulsively self-labeling, not in order to understand their own personality, but as a replacement for it.

That's why the newer sexual categories all seem to be centered around androgyny. They're not discovering their identity, but rejecting identity. It's an anti-identity. Opting for something dull and indistinct, where they're all allegedly being their authentic selves, but end up looking exactly like one another. And together they look like nothing, a dreary blend of two sexes, where all that is beautiful about both has been lost

and only the most superficial aspects remain. It's tempting to say that we're turning people into sexless robots. That's not quite the case. See, a robot has no sense of itself, no self-awareness. And that's the case everywhere, but in, you know, sci-fi. In reality, robot has no self-awareness. But the other hallmark of the modern Western person is that he is fanatically self-aware. He is consumed by his awareness of himself.

He is aware of almost nothing but himself, in fact. He is the exact opposite problem of the robot. While the robot cannot think of, cannot, cannot think of itself, he can't think of anything else. He is obsessed with figuring out what he feels and how he feels about what he feels, and how his feelings about what he feels make him feel, and on and on and on, an endless spiral, a black hole. Now, I'm skipping some steps here, admittedly. the lack of identity, the narcissism, the self-obsession, these only lay the groundwork.

We still need the cultural influences to come in and introduce these concepts, giving the empty people a framework that appeals to them in their emptiness. But they're only spreading fertilizer on ground that is somehow both sterile and yet fertile. So what happens in the end? When a person has no personality and yet can do nothing but stare back into the void of himself, trying to discover an authenticity that he's long since destroyed. Well, this is what happens. Modern culture is what happens.

Gender theory and pride flags with a thousand contrasting colors are what happens. A person with no life and who has had no experiences telling us to respect his lived experiences. That's what happens. Along with suicide and drug abuse and society beset by meaninglessness and despair. ultimately, civilizational collapse is what happens. But the good news is that we get some funny TikTok videos out of it. So try to look on the bright side.

Now let's get to our five headlines. Now, a quick word from Bambi. You know, I'm not a business owner myself, but one thing I hear from business owners all the time is that this is something that's only getting worse over time, not better, is that HR issues are what really can kill you because you've got wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, a lot of red tape that you have to weigh through.

And I'm guessing that you didn't get into, whatever your business is as an entrepreneur, you didn't get into that in order to deal with red tape and all this kind of nonsense. And that's why you need BAMB. Spelled BAM, B-A-E, it was created specifically for small businesses. You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month, which is a lot better than the $70,000 a year on average. that HR manager salaries will run you. With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength,

and your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, real-time chat. They're there for you. By the way, you're paying this month to month. No hidden fees. You can cancel any time. There's no reason not to try this. So go to Bambi.com slash Walsh right now to schedule your free HR audit. That's Bambi.com slash Walsh.

It's spelled BAMBBE.com slash Walsh. Anyway, you know, I wanted to mention, because I have this undeserved reputation as a hater of animals, maybe because I always talk about how I hate animals. But in spite of that, I did allow my kids to get a new pet, so that's big news in our house. And actually, they kidnapped the pet more like, or I mean, rescued it. It's a pet, it's a turtle, a baby turtle that they found. And the turtle is, it's like, it's damaged. It's disabled.

It has, like, half of its foot is missing. And it's got, it's a cracked shot. shell, really kind of a hideous little beast, but they wanted to keep it. And we said yes. But then get this, I go to the pet store that shall remain nameless. It's a big giant chain pet store type of place. And I go in and I tell the guy that we have this turtle and I'm look, and I'm trying to be responsible. Like, I'm like, what's the right kind of aquarium? Do you have one that costs less than $6,000? Because all of these things for a glass box, the prices here are ridiculous. Uh, what, even do we need a heat lamp or something? Like,

give me, give me the basics here. I'm already spending more time on this than I wanted to spend, but I'm trying to be responsible and the kids like it. And so I'm trying, you know, that's what I'm trying to do. And the guy refuses to help me because he said that we're not supposed to take turtles out of the wilderness. He won't help me. It refuses to. He takes like this, this ethical stand. And I said, okay, but the thing is a cripple. And we, my kids are saving it. It would be dead out there. Okay, it'd be bird food. And he said, and this is what he actually said. That's what he actually told me. This is what he recommended. He said, call the Tennessee Game Warden and have them come take the baby turtle. Oh, really? That's what you wanted me to do.

You'll me get on the phone and call the game board and say, we got this baby turtle with a leg missing. Come and take it. Are they going to waste their time on that? Anyway, the prices were too expensive. So I ended up leaving and we ordered it online anyway. And I had to control myself because I wanted so bad to get into an argument with this guy. But I also, you know, my kids are there.

It's like, do I want to start yelling at the guy at the pet store in the middle of the aisle making a scene? I decided. Part of me thinks I should have, but I decided not to. But, you know, I'm just thinking afterwards, you sell animals here. Where do you get them? Like, where do you come off getting all high and mighty? Where do these animals got? These animals aren't out in the wilderness. You sell them. How dare you? And now I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't even be talking about this publicly because apparently it's illegal what we did. Now there's going to be a SWAT team break it down my door trying to free the disabled turtle. All right. Let's move on. The January 6th commission is underway right now. Democrats are having their investigation. This is what their 10th or 11th

investigation they've had into these events. And I'm not going to play any clips of it right now. Not going to talk much about it because I really don't care and the whole thing is nothing but political theater. And that's it. That's all that I think really needs to be said about it. If it were anything but that, you know, if you want to prove to me, prove to everyone that it's not political theater, then after you're done your little January 6th commission, then next I want you to have a summer of 2020 commission where we talk about the riots

that plagued our country for months and months on end and which cost you, cost, billions of dollars of damage and killed dozens of people and left hundreds of people without jobs and without their homes and their livelihoods taken away from them. That's what I want to know about. I want to know how this was allowed to happen. I already know the answer, but that's the investigation. How did this happen? How did that happen? How was that allowed to happen? Where were the governors of these states? Where were the mayors? Well, we know where they were. In many cases, they were out in the street explicitly encouraging it, calling for more of it. We know there are high-ranking elected Democrats, explicitly calling for more unrest, going way further than Donald Trump ever did,

because Donald Trump never called for a riot. He never said, he never called for unrest. He never used any euphemism for riot. Democrats did with the BLM riots. How is it that that BLM militants were able to invade a police station in the middle of a major American city and burn it to the ground?

How did that happen? So that's the investigation I want. Of course, that investigation is never going to happen. And that's how we know that this is nothing but political theater. That's why I refuse to care. Any conservatives, so-called conservatives are Republicans who go along with this

and pretend that this is some sort of good faith effort to get to the bottom of it, get to the truth. And if you're playing that game, you are either stupid beyond all repair or something way worse than that. And I'm thinking probably the latter. All right, next from Fox News, California state employees and health care workers will need to show proof they've gotten a COVID-19 vaccine

or get tested weekly under a new mandate, according to state officials who announced this on Monday. The new rule, which will take effect next month, comes as the state looks to slow a rising number of coronavirus infections and hospitalizations, primarily affecting those who are not vaccinated. But the number of new cases is still well below the peak. At least 238,000 state employees and 2 million health care workers across public and private sector will be subjected to the new mandate.

So we're seeing the vaccine mandates officially begin now, starting with state workers. is it going to stay only with state workers and government workers? I highly doubt it. Governor Newsom was on CNN talking about this, and he made an analogy that I thought was interesting and also ridiculous. Let's listen. Is it time, Governor, to bring back a universal mask mandate,

regardless of the vaccination status there in California? Look, we don't even have to have that debate if we can just get everybody vaccinated that's not vaccinated. That's refusing to get that. vaccinated this living vaccine free and impacting the rest of us. It's like drunk drivers. You don't have the right to go out and drink and drive and put everybody else at risk, including your own life at risk.

California is one of the highest vaccination rates in America, but yet we're still seeing an increase because so many people, 25% in California, are refusing to get vaccinated. So we're really trying to focus on ending this pandemic once and for all. Those non-pharmaceutical interventions like face coverings and face masking were necessary in the absence of vaccines, but with these vaccines, but with these vaccines, that we can extinguish this virus once and for all and get it behind us and not worry about getting our kids safely back into in-person instruction or keeping our businesses open.

We're encouraged by the local determinations as it relates to mask covering, mask wearing. But at the end of the day, the real focus here, get vaccinated so we can end this pandemic. Yes, the vaccines work. They're safe and effective. also get the vaccine or you might infect me. Why would you question the effectiveness of the vaccine? That doesn't make any sense. That's absurd.

I have it and it's working. Now please get it or I might die. What's the problem? Why are you confused? Don't you understand? I have the vaccine. It's really safe. It's working.

It's great. You don't have the vaccine. And if you don't get it, then you're going to kill me. What's the problem here? Why are you staring at me? Like you're confused. Oh, oh, because the messaging here is completely confused and convoluted.

It makes no sense. And contradicts itself from one sentence to the next. Okay. Well, that's why. Drunk drivers? Okay, see, there's no vaccine. Here's the difference. He says that not getting a vaccine is like being a drunk driver.

There's no vaccine against drunk driving, is there? You can wear a seatbelt, but if someone crashes into you, you know, head first collision at 60 miles an hour, whether you've got the seatbelt or not, you're probably done for. Are you saying that the vaccine is only as effective as a seatbelt and a 60 mile per hour collision? Which is to say, doesn't really do much at all or often doesn't do anything? because if you want us to believe that the vaccine is effective, then that messaging doesn't make any sense at all. Either the vaccine works or it doesn't. That's it.

Either it's effective or it isn't. Choose one or the other. If your message, if your manner of your strategy for getting people to take the vaccine is to talk about the vaccine as if it doesn't work at all, then that is not going to be an effective strategy. Just a thought. All right, this is from USA today.

It says PayPal is collaborating with the Anti-Defamation League on research aimed at cutting off funding for extremist or hate groups. In a statement Monday, ADL said the research will explore how extremist or hate movements use financial platforms to fund their activities. Both that organization and PayPal say the results of their research will be shared within the financial industry, also policy makers and law enforcement. The chief risk officer and executive vice president of risk and platforms at PayPal said in a statement

by identifying partners across sectors with common goals and complementary resources, we can make an even greater impact than any of us would ever do on our own. As part of the initiative, PayPal and ADL will also form a coalition with civil rights organizations to protect marginalized communities from extremism. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said, we have a unique opportunity to further understand how hate spreads and develop key insights that will inform the efforts of the financial industry, law enforcement, and our communities in mitigating extremist threats.

So that's the story. Here's a relevant part of the ADL statement on this new initiative. It says the initiative with PayPal will be led through ADL's Center on Extremism, a leading authority on extremism, terrorism, and hate. PayPal and ADL will focus on further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements. In addition to extremists and anti-government organizations, the initiative will focus on actors and networks spreading and profiting from all forms of hate and bigotry against any community. This is a financial institution teaming up with anti-defamation league, which is really just a left-wing advocacy group.

in order to target hate and extremism. Nothing to worry about there, right? Of course, there's a lot to worry about. And this was guaranteed. Now, we should have been worried about this. You know, back when concepts like hate speech took hold, or even using a word like extremism or an extremist, as if it's an objectively bad label.

You know, that's, to be extreme, your views, whether or not that's a bad thing. It really depends on what the view is. If you're correct, if you are in truth, then there's no way to be too extreme. There's no way to be too extreme about the truth. Extremism becomes a problem. Extremeism is a, problem of degree. If you're wrong and you're, you know, and you're extremely wrong, that's going to be even worse than being sort of moderately wrong. So all of these were extreme radical. Oh, we wouldn't want to have radicals. It's a bad thing to be a radical. Well, it really depends, doesn't it? Depends on what your cause is, what your movement is. Fundamentalist is another word

related to that. It's a bad thing to be a fundamentalist talking about religious people. Yeah, it's bad to be a fundamentalist if the fundamentals of your religion are flawed. But if they're not, then yeah, you ought to be a fundamentalist. Just means abiding by the fundamentals of your religion. If the fundamentals of your religion are violent, then, yes, it's a problem to be a fundamentalist there. So it really depends. And that's also the case with hate.

Is it a bad thing to hate? Again, it depends. It depends on what you hate and why. Everybody hates things. It's part of being a human being. Hate is the other side of the coin to love. They're on the same coin. In fact, in order to love something, you must also hate.

Example, I love my children, more than life itself. And because I love them, there are many things that I therefore hate. Primarily anything that threatens to hurt them and cause them harm. anything that that wishes to corrupt them you know i hate that it's a big reason why i hate um left wing gender theory critical race theory because of of the harm that it does to kids who are indoctrinated into it but we have as a society and including a lot of conservatives we've gone along with this idea that all hate is automatically bad hey i don't want to get engage in Hate speech is like a different category from regular speech.

See, there's regular speech, which is okay, and that's when you're giving your opinions about things. But hate speech is a totally different thing, and that's bad, because it means that you're using speech to convey that you hate something. Well, it's only bad sometimes. Depends on what you're hating, right? Extremism is a radical fundamentalist. We allowed all of these words to become objectively. bad in our culture. And now this.

And now there's a, by the most powerful forces in our culture, on a campaign to erase hate and extremism. And on the surface level, who could possibly object? They just want to get rid of hate. Hate's a bad thing, right? Hate speech is different than regular speech. We've already, apparently, we've all agreed with this and established it. But because it all depends, now it's going to be a matter of the question.

is, well, okay, what type of hate are you going after here? Are you going to be targeting people? What about those who would hate someone like me? For being a white conservative male? What about that kind of hate speech? I know, we're going to leave that alone because that's a good hate. All right. Moving on, this is from The Daily Wire. John Oliver, host of HBO's fake news show last week. The night believes the U.S. government should pay monetary restitution to black Americans to commentate for the country's past racism. He argued Sunday night, the only really strange thing about it is that we haven't done it yet. Citing a 2014 Atlantic article, the case for reparations, the British comedian based his arguments not on slavery, but on housing discrimination. Oliver said the history of race and land ownership in America has many horrifying chapters, pretty much from Chapter 1 when America was discovered from under other people's feet.

Despite the fact that the Fair Housing Act, first act in 1968, makes it illegal to consider race or skin color in the sale of homes, all over contended that minorities still face discrimination when it comes to federal mortgage loans and home appraisals. The comedian also blasted colorblind proposals like Joe Biden's $15,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit and made an argument specifically for race-based policies. And he went on for 30 minutes here advocating for reparations. Of course, the first thing I'm going to say, anytime someone advocates for reparations, and if you are a white person yourself, John Oliver is worth, I think, worth $30 million, maybe more than that. With your net worth and all the wealth that you have, how many black families could you lift out of poverty on your own?

If all of the wealthy white liberals in our country who say they want things like reparations, talk to pretty much any Hollywood celebrity, any white Hollywood celebrity, ask them what they think about reparations. they're going to tell you, oh yeah, absolutely, we need that. I'm enlightened. Of course I'm in favor of that. Okay, well, what about selling one of your seven mansions and going into one of these underprivileged cities and, you know, giving out the profits?

Well, no, because you don't want to be the one to pay. You want other people to pay the reparations, of course. In fact, when I brought this point up, some people observed that John Oliver is British, although I think he's now an American citizen, technically. Well, he's British, and so I was actually told this on Twitter that it's, well, he's British and he just came to this country recently, and none of this is his fault. Well, a couple things here. First of all, yeah, that's part of the point about reparations, isn't it?

That even if I were to agree that you could inherit guilt from your ancestors, meaning that now you have to pay up for the sins they committed, which I don't agree, but even if I did, a great number of the white people who live here now, myself included, weren't our bloodline, our ancestors, weren't in this country when this stuff was happening. And in fact, for many of us, when our ancestors did come here, they also faced discrimination and prejudice.

So how do you work that out? That's the case for me as a person of Irish descent. And speaking of John Oliver being a Brit, okay, maybe he should be paying his own reparations then for the sins of his ancestors. Pay them to me, pay them to the Irish. I'll cut me the first check. I'll be first in line.

And that's always going to be the first problem with any call to reparations is that so often the people calling for it are in a position where they could start doling it out themselves of their own volition. and they choose not to, which tells you something. But also, you know, when we talk about past discrimination, bad things that happened in the past,

and how that is responsible and that has led to the situation that we face today, my first question is going to be what's going on in the family. So before we can talk about reparations at all, how about this? let's get the fatherless rate in the black community. Let's get it down. It's 70% right now or more, depending on what community specifically we're looking at. Around 70%. Let's get it down to 30%, which is still really high.

But what would happen if we got that fatherless rate down to 30%? We're only 30% of black children are growing up in fatherless homes. because I'm going to bet that if we were to do that, a lot of these problems that we blame on historical racism would start to go away, or they would at least improve dramatically. How's that for an idea? When we start there, let's get down to 30%.

And while we're at it, we can work on the fatherless rate in every other community because it's too high everywhere for everybody. And then we can check back. We could check back in on this issue. I would even make that deal. You know what? If that doesn't move the needle at all, then all right, fine, we'll do reparations. That's how confident I am that it will. All right. This is from the Daily Wire also. It says Americans are deeply divided on the issue of

transgender athletes, and most Americans, even most Democrats, believe that athletes should not compete against others of the gender with which they identify, according to an Axios poll out on Monday. The poll seems to indicate a consensus among Americans that transgender athletes, most often biological males, should not compete according to the gender with the enderer with which they identify if that gender is different from the biological sex they were assigned at birth. There does not appear to be a consensus, however, on who athletes who identify as transgender should compete against.

Axios notes that the poll shows a deep division, but overall just 20% of respondents, said that transgender athletes should be able to select which team they compete on. It says, quote, while 39% of people say transgender athletes should compete against others of the gender they were assigned at birth,

20% said they should compete against others of the gender with which identify. And it says while Americans disagree, while Americans disagree seems to be over, while Americans disagreement, I guess I was supposed to say, it seems to be over where transgender athletes fit in. Around 40% of respondents said transgender athletes should compete against others of their biological gender. Okay, this is all very confusing because it sounds like you have a majority of Americans on both sides of the political aisle who say, no, men shouldn't, to simplify the language here. What they're saying is, no, males should not compete against females. But not all

of the people saying that are willing to also say that the males should only compete against males. So who should they compete against? This is really the only two options. It's either male or female. Should males compete against females? Most people say, no, of course not. Oh, so you mean that they should only compete against males? And then half the people say, well, no, I wouldn't go that far. What I think we can get from this because the results are totally confused and and don't really make a lot of sense on the surface. What I think we can glean from this is that most people know that men shouldn't compete against women. Most people know that intuitively.

They recognize that because it's obvious. But they're terrified of their own common sense. They don't want to take their own common sense logic all the way to not only its logical conclusion, but the only conclusion, is that if males aren't competing against females, they're only competing against males. But people are so afraid. They know that this is crazy. Right and left. I think most people know that this is crazy. It doesn't make any sense. We're going to have a male weightlifter competing against females in the Olympics. That's coming up in a few days. So you can tune in and watch that. Laurel Hubbard, I believe, is the man's name. Laurel Hubbard, who wouldn't

would not be able to compete at all against the men. Mediocre at best against the men. Wouldn't make it onto the field. Wouldn't come close to even sniffing a qualification as a male, but put up against females, and he dominates because that's how profound the differences are between the sexes physically. And I think most people look at that,

and they intuitively recognize this doesn't make any sense. It's completely ridiculous. But they are terrified to recognize that. And so they don't want to take it all the way to its logical conclusion. They certainly don't want to talk about it very much. And although most people recognize that it's wrong, these policies are put in place across the country, not only in the Olympics and in colleges, but all the way down to high school and lower levels than that. And most of the people who recognize that it's wrong don't say anything about it. You know, a lot of conservatives look at these kinds of poll results and they're encouraged by them.

but me, maybe not surprisingly, as an avowed pessimist, I kind of take it the other way. I would almost, given the fact that these policies are being put in place across the country, and most people simply go along with it and don't protest it, I would almost rather that the poll results show that 90% of Americans think it's okay to have males competing against females. Because 90% of Americans are going along with it, I would rather believe that they're going along with it because they honestly believe this is the right thing. In some ways, I would rather live in a country full of really confused people than a country full of cowards, which I think is what we have. Okay, I'm reading the YouTube comments now.

This is from gibberish, says Matt, today your shirt color is blue and white with a checkered pattern. I'm sure you were wondering. Well, that was my shirt color yesterday, of course. and now I'm getting these comments a lot of people telling me what my what what clothes I'm wearing and what color the clothes are and I appreciate that as a color vision deficient American I do appreciate that um Chloe says Matt you better not forget about me when you're famous well I'm already famous and I've already forgotten about you I'm sorry those uh Ryan says your arguments for conservatorship are just poorly thought out well sir your counter argument has persuaded me thank you for that I abandoned my previous position. I love these comments you get people.

You make an argument and you lay it out. I mean, I laid out my argument with the conservatorship yesterday for like 15 minutes. And then someone says, actually, you're wrong about that, period. Oh, okay. Well, never mind then. Old schooled says, Matt, please make this the last time you waste our time on Brittany. Fair enough. me credit because people were talking about the Britney Spears thing for months and and I didn't say

anything about it. I think I showed incredible restraint. But then I couldn't take it anymore and I had to run my mouth. So I can only, it was really, it was once I found out that the Republicans are, some Republicans are trying to push legislation, the Save Brittany Act. That for me was the last straw and I couldn't. I had to, I had to say something. Frederick says, you are truly a pathetic. and bitter little man, you have never achieved an infinitesimal amount of the beauty and joy John Lennon has brought into the world. Well, maybe, but John Lennon released the plague known as Imagine onto mankind, and he should never be forgiven for that. Okay? I have never committed an atrocity as bad as that. Though he's not as bad as Paul McCartney, who is responsible for

wonderful Christmas time, which forever will be the worst song ever written. Jeannie says, Matt, I don't agree that Britney should be under conservatorship. If she can't, if she can work in Las Vegas doing shows several nights a week, she deserves her own money and time. Yeah, I hear this a lot. That to me makes no sense. The fact that someone can get up on stage and sing and perform a choreographed routine, even if they're really good at the choreography and the dancing and are moderately okay

at the singing part of it, that doesn't prove anything about their psychological state. You could certainly be totally psychotic and do that. So I don't think that really proves anything in and of itself. And Kurt says, I like this show. Please don't get me wrong. I'd like it even better if you did a show slamming the Wright's shortcomings. I think I do that a lot, don't I?

The Wright loves regulating things. The war on drugs, for one, is immoral. I should be able to ingest any damn thing I want. Well, you can ingest any damn thing you want, Kurt. I mean, you could drink a bottle of gasoline if you wanted to. I wouldn't recommend it. Please don't. But you could.

There's no law to prevent it. Or if there is a law, there's no law that could prevent you from doing that, we should say. The question, though, at least for me, here's the question. Because you said ingest any damn thing you want. Okay, let's take gasoline. There are probably laws saying, please don't drink gasoline. but no one can actually stop you from doing it. The question is whether it should be legal for the gas station

to put the gasoline into bottles and sell it to you for the purpose of drinking. Even if they tell you it's going to kill you. Put it on the label. Should they be able to do that? My answer is no. I don't think it should be legal to sell poison to people in any form. Something that is purely poison and really can't do anything but damage you and eventually kill you.

I don't think that should be legal. And finally, William says, us sweet babies must address Matt as Daddy Walsh. No, that's too weird. Let's back it down a little bit. Sweet baby gang, obviously, sweet baby gang for life. I'm into that, but don't call me Daddy Walsh.

Obviously, you should be calling me Sweet Daddy Walsh. And I'm going to so badly regret having just said that. I know I will. Exciting news to share with you all today, Ben Shapiro's newest book, The Authoritarian Moment, hits bookshelves today. And if you're thinking, didn't Ben Shapiro just put out a book recently? He did, but he's somehow able to write like two books a year while it takes me about five years to write one. I don't understand how he does it physically, but he does. And all the books are really good also. And he's doing his live stream book signing

tonight at 7.30 p.m. Eastern, 6.30 p.m. Central at DeliWire.com. Ben Shapiro, YouTube, and Ben Shapiro, Facebook. You can order your limited edition signed book now for just $30 at dailywire.com slash Ben. I told you yesterday that it was your last chance to order that book. I lied to you. It's not my fault. They made me lie because I just read what was on the paper. Turns out you could still order the book. So do it now. It's a pretty good deal if you ask me, especially because you can submit a question right now when you go to purchase your signed copy. Again, that's dailywire.com slash Ben. And also, is there anything more terrifying that a bunch of communist world leaders all deciding to be extremely communist and tyrannical at the same time? I don't think so. You have

Cuban, Cubans being thrown in jail for protesting their authoritarian government in the streets, the French facing police violence as they protest the enforcement of vaccine passports, Newsom cracking the whip and sending L.A. into lockdown mode, yet again, and that's happening across the country. And perhaps the most frightening of all, our own president, is colluding with big tech to increase censorship of dissenting viewpoints. Governments all over the world, including ours, are trying to squeeze their citizens for every last drop of freedom that they have, and unfortunately, they're succeeding.

That's why it's time for your favorite voices of reason. Okay, we're finally getting to the part where I talk about the backstage. I was wondering when that would happen. We're going to have a backstage, is what I'm trying to tell you. Ben Shapiro, myself, Jeremy Boring, Michael Knowles, and Andrew Claven are going to be having backstage tomorrow. It'll be another cigar-packed session of backstage. It's been a terrible.

This has just been an absolute disaster. You know, you guys know it back. The other thing is with the backstage events, we kind of end up talking about everything. So you never know what we're going to talk about, but I guess this will be the primary topic of conversation. It streams this Wednesday at 7 o'clock p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Central on Dailywire.com and on our YouTube channel, DailyWire. Don't miss it. And don't make me read this copy again. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Our daily cancellation comes in some ways full circle from the opening monologue.

Our focus is on a man named Rob Rousseau, who described himself in his bio as a flamboyant writer, whatever that. that is supposed to mean exactly. On Sunday, he tweeted this. He said, do you ever just sit around and suddenly remember that you've been living through an unprecedented traumatic crisis event for the past year and a half and will probably be dealing with the profound psychological consequences for years to come? L.O.L. Now, as always on the internet, the comments are what tell the story, I think. Many people like to say that the internet isn't real life. And it isn't. That's correct. You can't live a real life on the internet, as previously discussed. But it is, however, largely populated by real people, not counting all the bots. So the way people act,

the things they say, however they comport themselves on the internet, is then a reflection of the sorts of people that exist in reality. That's a chilling thought, I realize, but it's an inescapable conclusion all the same. On that note, here are some of the comments under Rob's post, and there are hundreds more where these came from. I'll read a few. I tend to cloak my own psychological on this site, small, wait, this doesn't make any sense. I tend to cloak my own psychological trauma on this slight but small reveal. Primary trauma was five years ago when Trump got GOP nod and then won the general. It felt personal, intentional, like discovering a portion of my friend's family acquaintances

secretly wished me ill. Another says, this, I was dealing with anxiety and depression already, but Trump's election damaged my trust in the world in large ways. It's so frustrating knowing this was all coming for five years and seeing so many oblivious to it drove me mad. Now I'm just angry all the time. Wait a second. You knew that the coronavirus pandemic was coming for five years? And you didn't tell anybody?

I feel like we might need to circle back around to that one. Another comment says, definitely, never had anxiety before. Now I'm anxious about everything. Example, the thermostat broke in my refrigerator. Rather than having it fixed, I bought a large mini-fridge because I didn't want a possible disease and Repair Man in my house. Disease-infested repairman. It's not elitist at all, is it?

Another says, no, I sit around and realize we're watching an entire world in freefall and wonder if I should gently talk my children out of having children, because at this point, in 30 years, the planet may be unlivable with global warming and raging COVID variants caused by the selfish and the cruel. And another says, try being black on top of that the last 30 years. my every waking moment is psychological trauma. I have to laugh at through memes to function the next day. If a cop doesn't shoot me in the face first, then a pandemic on top?

Okay. It may be comforting to imagine that these are the ramblings of a small assortment of paranoid schizophrenics, but what is comforting is not always true, and it certainly is not true in this case. The sad fact is that a large portion of the population feels this way. They have fashioned themselves surveying. of a near-death experience, though the experience isn't over in their minds. It never will be. And they believe that what they're living through is, as the original post said, unprecedented. The horror which we have suffered, but mostly which they have suffered, has no analog in human history,

they think. And it's an easy mistake to make if your knowledge of history extends no further than, I don't know, a decade or so into the past. In truth, of course, and this is really important to understand, to put things in perspective. There is a lot of is nothing at all unprecedented about the pandemic itself. Nothing. It'll take you about 15 seconds on Google to discover many examples of far deadlier outbreaks. The most obvious one that comes to mind is the Black Plague, of course, which killed half of the population of Europe. Now, by comparison in the U.S., COVID has killed about 2.2% of the population. So that's 50% versus a tiny fraction of 1%.

Almost none of those deaths have been children, thank God, or young people. The vast majority have been the elderly or sick or morbidly obese. Now, it's still a sad and terrible thing, no doubt. And you can call it a sad and terrible thing without hearing any objection from me. If you'd just say, well, this COVID has been sad and terrible. Of course it has been. I agree. but if you call it unprecedented and speak of the lifelong trauma you'll now suffer because of it, I have to remind you that your real issue is your own ignorance and self-absorption.

Now with that said, there was one unprecedented element of this pandemic. Our response to it has been unprecedented. Trying to shut down the whole world and the global economy for a year, that is unprecedented. people who are not at any high risk wearing medical masks every day, all day, everywhere they go for a year or more, that is unprecedented. But an unprecedented reaction to an event does not make the event itself unprecedented. I might scream and run away from a spider in the house, but the fact that I'm reacting to the spider in a way that no other self-respecting man ever would doesn't mean that the spider is actually the biggest spider anyone has ever seen. By the way, that was just a hypothetical example. I would never react to a spider that way, as far as you know.

Are people actually traumatized by all of this, though? I mean, certainly if you nearly died from it, or if a loved one did die from it or almost died from it, then I don't doubt that you're suffering psychological wounds from that experience. If you lose a loved one, it doesn't matter how you lose them. We can call that a traumatic event. but many of the people talking about their trauma didn't actually have a traumatic experience with the virus.

I could only assume that Rob didn't. That's why he said LOL at the end of it. I mean, I assume if a close family member died, he wouldn't be saying, this was a traumatic event, LOL. I wish I could say that, you know, these people merely think that they're traumatized. But I think the truth is worse and more disturbing. It's more accurate to say, I think,

that lots of people wish they were traumatized because we've come to see trauma as a fashionable and desirable thing. That's where we get this very modern phenomenon of people bragging about their trauma and discovering trauma everywhere they look. Not just in global pandemics, but someone looks at them the wrong way or says a word they don't like, it's traumatic.

You talk to a lot of people, people these days, and they suffer traumatic. In fact, one of those comments that every, every waking moment is a traumatic event, because that's what they wish. That's what they want. They've come to sort of fetishize trauma. And back when everybody lived a hard life, almost everyone did, this is most of human history, by the way, again, for perspective. most of human history for the majority of time that humans have occupied this planet almost everyone on the planet with the exception of the absolute most wealthy and powerful everyone else lived lives of deprivation and suffering and they died often horrible deaths

at much younger ages. And they had to have a lot of kids because they knew that some of their kids would die. It was just an expected thing. Do you think they went around every day talking about their trauma, bragging about it? No, they didn't have time for that

because they were busy living and surviving, which was a job, which was work. In our culture, people are so comfortable and have gotten so accustomed to the ease of life and the luxury of it that they have now the luxury of making a fetish out of trauma, which brings us back to the beginning. People without personality or identity who seem to think that trauma makes them interesting.

And it's sort of a replacement for personality. And all of that is why, I forget even who we're canceling now. Oh, yeah, Rob, Rousseau, the flamboyant writer. is today now canceled. And we'll leave it there. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Benchapiro show, Michael

Null's show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. Our technical director is Austin Stevens. Production manager, Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.

And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. John Bickley here, editor-in-chief of Daily Wire. Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire. On today's show, the Justice Department decides not to investigate nursing home deaths in 2020, House Democrats assemble a January 6th committee, and tensions rise as U.S. diplomats sit down with Chinese officials. Join us and get the facts first on the news you need to know with our show Morning Wire.