Matt Walsh (29:59)
So there is no greater evidence that you failed as a father than this. You failed so badly as a father that your son has given up on being a man. You know, there are a lot of factors that go into the, the trans explosion that we've seen over the past decade. This is definitely one of them. A lack of strong male role models, a lack of male led homes. Robert De Niro obviously was not a constant presence in his son's life. He couldn't have been with four different families. And De Niro has also proven himself to be a weak, pathetic man in so many ways, which is a shame. He used to be a great actor, truly great. Not anymore, but. And now his son has given up on being a man, although he is still a man and will always be. He's attempting to renounce it. He's attempting to renounce his manhood, which is the most severe indictment of his father that he could possibly deliver. Because as a father, it's your job to teach your son how to be a man, which is not something that boys can just figure out on their own, as our experience in society has shown. Now, yeah, biologically, a boy will become a man no matter what you teach him. And there are many aspects of masculinity that just come naturally, that are instinctual, biological. But the question of how to be a man in this world, what a man should do, how a man should be, how a man should carry himself, these are things that a boy needs his father to show him. And he will follow in his father's footsteps, follow his father's example. If his dad is absent, or if his dad is a weak, pathetic, you know, nothing of a man, then he will look for replacements. And I think what you see in a lot of these cases is that he turns to his mom as a replacement for his dad, and then the boy will become effeminate, or he'll try to go all the way and actually become a woman. Now, there are also cases, particularly when it's a younger boy. In this case, this guy is 29 years old. But when it's a younger boy, of course, there are many cases we've seen where the father is not in the child's life, but not by any choice of his own. The father's pushed out by the mother, taken away from the father, but still the result is the same. Now it's not the father's fault, but he's no longer there to be able to influence his son, show his son how to be a man, and what ends up happening. In so many cases, the child ends up being transed through no fault of the child's own either, obviously. But that's because he's now the father has been removed from the equation in his life. And so now he has no male role model. Now he's looking to his mom. And so it's not a big surprise that it goes that way. And we see this, and not just with the trans stuff. I mean, in the case of a boy growing up in the inner city without a father, he's looking around for that male role model. He's going to look around at his peers, he'll look in the media, he'll look to rappers and so on and come up with this cartoonish idea of masculinity and become a cartoon man. And that's why we have so many cartoon men walking around. And it all comes back to a lack of masculine role models. And this is very clear example of it. All right, I guess we will deal with this right now. I have been viciously attacked. I've been attacked on the Daily Wire website, no less. As I mentioned yesterday, Jacob, who is a producer here and who you've seen him on the channel, because he's gotten wrecked by me in Mortal Kombat at least three dozen times, I think, by my count. And he's penned an op ed attempting to debunk my criticisms of Revenge of the Sith. Jake was a big Star wars fan and heard my segment a few days ago and wept. He was up all night crying, from what I understand, from what I assume, anyway, multiple nights. When I saw him at work yesterday, it was just like his cheeks were stained with tears. And amid his tears, he wrote this. Here's the headline, why Matt Walsh is Wrong about Revenge of the Sith. So let's go through this. I haven't even really read this, but we'll read it now. Matt Walsh is a man of many talents. A popular podcaster, a notable documentarian, a feared fisherman, and a surprisingly good Mortal Kombat player. Okay, we're off to a good start. I mean, actually, so far I agree. I agree. So far, we could just end it There, See, Jacob, you should stop while you're ahead. That should have been the end of the Matt Walsh is man and many talents. The end. Thanks for reading. There's one persistent trait, however, that must be addressed. His passionate hatred of Star Wars. I discovered Walsh's animosity for Star wars in May of 2023 while listening to his show. Okay, all right. We don't need the biography. We don't need your whole life story. Last Thursday, theaters nationwide launched a week long re release of Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith to celebrate the film's 20th anniversary. The film stands out not only for its stunning cinematography, one of a kind soundtrack and compelling life lessons. What's the life lesson? Don't jump around on lava. That's the life lesson. But also, as the final Star wars entry before progressive infused Disney acquisition, Walsh apparently did not recognize the exceptional film for what it is. After taking his children to see in theaters, he took to X and attacked the movie. I'll now address his unfounded criticisms. Okay, all right. This was my challenge yesterday when we talked about this at length, at too great a length, some would argue. You didn't know you were going to get three segments this week on Revenge of the Sith, but you did. That's what you're getting. That's what you're getting whether you like it or not. But that was my challenge yesterday. I said, can anyone like. I laid out my criticisms. Don't. Just I don't. The fact that you're sad about it is not important to me, is not interesting. Go through my criticisms and address them. That's what I want. It's my challenge to the Star wars apologists out there. And so it looks like this is what Jacob is setting up to do. So, all right. His first issue is with the film's dialogue. Walsh claims Revenge of the Sith has the worst dialogue he's ever heard in a mainstream Hollywood film. To support his claim, he quotes a romantic scene between Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala. Is that really her name? Padme Amidala. And the dialogue again, Anakin says, you're so beautiful. Padme says, it's only because I'm so in love. Anakin. No, it's because I'm so in love with you. Walsh leaves out the second half of the scene, which reveals the lines are not poorly written, but instead an intentional foreshadowing of what to come later. The scene continues. Padme. So love has blinded you? Anakin. Well, that's not exactly what I meant. Padme but it's probably true. You think that helps your case? You think I was doing George Lucas a favor by not citing the rest of that scene? It gets worse. You think a cliche like love has blinded you? Okay, A cliche that you can find in, like, every 80s song ever written. You think that makes it better? This is better dialogue. Now, at this point in the film, Anakin believes his wife is going to die in childbirth because of a vision he has in his sleep as the primary antagonist. Emperor Palpatine, not Ovaltine. Oh, okay. Tells him that committing to the dark side is only the way to save her. This and his blinding love for Padme leads him to commit the atrocities he does later in the film. Pure genius from George Lucas, who Walsh claims should be arrested. It did say that Walsh's next criticism of the film is that it has abysmal action. Well, hang on a second. That's your defense of the dialogue? That's it. Your defense of the dialogue is to just explain what it meant? Yeah, Jacob, I know what it meant. I know that it's very obvious. It's very on the nose, okay? It could not have been more obvious. George Lucas screams his dialogue into a megaphone while beating you over the head with a shovel. I mean, he makes it as. It could not be more clear. I understand what it meant. That's the problem. It's so on the nose. It's cliche. We find out what characters are feeling and thinking by them just saying it. That's not good script writing. That's not interesting dialogue. If a character is sad and he walks into the room and says, I'm sad, that's bad dialogue, okay? And adding a cliche to it makes it even worse. If he walks in the room and says, I'm so sad that I could cry. A whole ocean of tears. Three oceans of tears have come out of my eyes. I have the anger of a hot sun. Anger boils inside me like a thousand suns. Like, that's not. That doesn't make it better. So now it's on the nose. You're broadcasting everything. And it's cliches, all the worst things. So I'm not. I'm not convinced by that. Let me just. Let me give you. Okay, so here's one random. So just so you understand what I mean, one random example of good script writing. And I only make. Because I was thinking about this movie today for some reason, or somebody mentioned it maybe on X. And I'm not saying this is, like, the best dialogue of all time. Just like an example, just one little example of what I mean, of what good. How a good scriptwriter does this. So there's a film that came out recently called the Iron Claw, and it's a true story about the Von Erich family, who were a family of professional wrestlers in the 80s and early 90s. And it's a brilliant film. I don't care about the professional wrestling at all. I didn't know anything about this story. Even though it's a famous story, I didn't know about it. I really liked the film. I thought it was very, very good. It was a tragic story. The patriarch of the family, Fritz Von Erich, was a professional wrestler. He had six sons with his wife Doris, I think. And all but one of the sons in real life died, like, in their 20s or 30s. And actually in the movie, they made it. If anything, they undersold it, where in real life, there were five sons who died, I think, and in the movie, it's only four. And they didn't do the. They didn't add the. They took a whole son out because they just thought it was so tragic that it would seem unbelievable. The audience wouldn't buy it anyway. So in real life, after the death of their fifth son, Fritz and Doris get divorced and the marriage falls apart. And, you know, Fritz in the film is portrayed as, like, emotionally distant and abusive and domineering and all these things. Well, in the script, by the end of the film, they want to show us that the marriage fell apart and that Doris leaves him. And in the movie, Doris is portrayed throughout the movie as, like, this passive character, and she doesn't stand up for her sons at all and all this kind of stuff. So by the end, they want to show, like, some kind of resolution, and they want to convey this quickly and poignantly without beating you over the head with it. And the George Lucas approach would be to have a scene where Doris yells at Fritz and says, I'm angry about the fact that you're abusive. I'm so sad and angry, I'm leaving. To be clear, I'm divorcing you because I'm so sad. My heart feels like it's broken. But in this film, made by a good filmmaker and written by a talented writer, an actual artist, all we see is a scene at the end where Fritz walks into the kitchen around dinner time. Kitchen's dark. There's no food on the stove. Fritz looks over to Doris, who's sitting across the room and painting, and he says, what are you doing? She says, I'm painting. And he Says, well, what's for dinner? And she says, I didn't make anything. I wasn't hungry. And then he kind of stands there and lingers, and then he just walks out of the room. And that's the end of that scene. And we don't see those characters again. That is the conclusion of their story. That is good script writing because the scene symbolizes the dissolution of the marriage. They never talk about their marriage. She doesn't say, I'm leaving you. They don't need to. The writer communicates the point without having the characters actually talk about it. Okay? Because she now is focused on herself. She's not serving her husband anymore. And they symbolize that by this simple fact that not only did she not make him dinner, but her reason for not making it is that she wasn't hungry. Like, she's not even thinking about him anymore. And that's the scene, okay? And that is subtext. You're supposed to have subtext in a good script, but with George Lucas, it's only text. And that's my issue with it anyway. Okay, so Jacob Walsh's next criticism of the film is that it has abysmal action choreography. To me, this attack is the most absurd. The final fight between Anakin, Obi wan Kenobi, Master vs Apprentice is one of the most iconic fight scenes in cinema history. Numerous outlets such as watchmojo, Screen Rant and Movie Web rank the battle as one of the greatest sword fights in movie history. Oh, well, if Movie Web and watchmojo liked it, then never mind. Oh, I didn't know that when I thought that it was lame choreography. I didn't know that Movie Web and watchmojo said that it was a great scene. It's the weirdest appeal to authority I've ever seen. Let's see. Okay. Like many things Walsh has criticized in the film, the seemingly risky move Anakin used was intentional. All right, I don't. Okay. And then we get. Now he's nerding out, and we're getting a lot of background information about Star Wars. Walsh's final objection to the film is that it took itself too seriously. He expands on this by claiming you can't be campy and fun and also have a mass child slaughter in the same film. Most of Walsh's criticism come from a lack of looking beneath the surface, taking everything at face value. There is nothing beneath the surface. That's my whole point. That's the whole problem here. Revenge of the Sith was always meant to be lighthearted in the beginning and tragic in the end, after nearly three decades of fans left without a backstory, the purpose of the movie was to show how Hollywood's most iconic villain, Darth Vader, transformed from a cunning warrior for good to the embodiment of evil. Following the classic hero's journey literary archetype, we witness Anakin's lighthearted upbringing in episodes one and two and his tragic fall in the end. Okay, I get it. And then he concludes with, we can only hope Matt Walsh will read this piece and watch it again with an open mind. I don't think I need to watch it again. Yeah, I'm aware of the point that they're trying to show his descent into evil. I get that. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with it conceptually. I mean, there are a lot of films that have done that. There are a lot of stories that have done that, books that have done that. That's the Godfather. That's Godfather 1 and 2. We start with Michael Corleone, and he's a war hero in all this. And by the end of. Once you get to the end of part two, he's murdering his own brother. Right. So I have no problem with that. The problem is that it's. But it's tonally. It's tonally schizophrenic. In the same movie. In the same movie. It's kind of goofy and lighthearted and all of this. Or it's trying to be. But then also, oh, look, he's gonna murder a whole room full of children. And it's tonally inconsistent. Okay. The Godfather, a tragic story. Right. But it's tonally consistent throughout the entire thing. All right, I'm not convinced. I have to say. I am not convinced. I did have one other thing I wanted to mention briefly. The Ohio Department of. Do we have time? Yeah, we sure do. Who cares? The Ohio Department of Transportation released a video of an accident on the highway. They just released this. And this resonated with me because I see this exact thing on the highway here in Nashville all the time. And. And we'll put it up. There's. There's no audio to it, but you can see the. The. The accident here. This is on the highway. There's a red van about to miss its exit. And the person in the red van stops dead on the highway in order to not miss the exit. And then every other car behind the red van has to stop. And then next thing you know, there's a massive pile up, and like, three or four cars get into an accident and then the red van just drives away. And I see this exact thing all the time. In fact, I've complained about this exact scenario on the show before. Someone's going to miss an exit rather than just keep driving and get off at a different exit and turn around. Instead, they either whip across multiple lanes of traffic or even worse, they slow down. Or worse than that, they come to a dead stop on the highway as if there's a stop sign right in the middle of the highway and then they try to make their exit. I see some variation of this all the time. I've said before, I think we've reached crisis levels of bad driving in this country. I think it's like a real problem and the data actually backs this up. It's not just anecdotal. I think it's partly because of. I don't know who was in that red van. If I had to guess and I'm look, I could be wrong. I'm totally guessing. I didn't look this up. Maybe this information might be known because whoever it is, they should be prosecuted. Because that's like, it's not. I don't know how you pro. It's not technically a hit and run because they didn't hit anyone, but they caused a hit and run or whatever. They caused a hit and then ran. So I don't know who was in the van. I'm guessing either a woman or an immigrant. And I'm just guessing. And that's again, that's data based and that's just based on the data. And because part of what is causing all the terrible driving, I think, is unchecked immigration. We have a lot of third world drivers on the road who drive like they're in the third world. Because if you've ever driven in a third world country, you know that there are no rules, there's no law. It's total chaos. Everyone's just doing whatever they want. There are cars and bikes and scooters and cows all sharing the same road, going whatever speed they want. And no stop signs, no yielding, no traffic lights, just chaos. And now we're importing people who drive that way. And. And I think that's part of it. It's not just third worlders. There's been a general decline in driving quality, which is why we need to first of all significantly raise the bar for who gets a license. Significantly lower the bar for losing your license. Like if you do that, what we just watched there, even if you don't, even if you don't cause an accident. If you do it, you should lose your license for like five years. Intensive driving safety courses before you get your license back. And the driver's exam should be a lot more difficult and there should be a tier system. This is my main, this is my, my innovation that I proposed before that I think is I personally think it's pretty good because not all drivers should be treated the same or have the same privileges or access to the same roads, in my opinion. So if you go, I think what I've pitched is if you go a decade without causing an accident or getting any moving violations, and if in that time you've driven for a minimum of, let's say 150,000, 200,000 miles, then you should be a tier one driver. And what does that mean? You get your own lane on the highway. Forget about the carpool lane. I don't care. Carpool like you're not special just because you have more people in the car. And I say that as someone who's frequently driving with eight people in the car, eight of my own family members, you know, not illegal immigrants, that I'm human smuggling. So, but that doesn't, why do you get a special lane? Just because you have more people in your car? That doesn't mean. No, that lane, forget about carpool. And it's what the symbol is like a diamond. So it should be you're a diamond driver, you're tier one and you get your own lane and only tier ones are allowed in that lane. You pay lower tolls, all kinds of privileges and cause As a Tier 1 driver myself, I'm getting lumped in with all these tier twos and tier threes and I think that causes a lot of chaos. So that's my pitch. We need someone in a position of power to get on board with it. With the uncertainty surrounding tariffs, families across the country are potentially facing another wave of price increases at the grocery store. But there's good news. GoodRanchers.com is completely tariff proof. Thanks to their 100% American supply chain, you'll get stable prices for high quality meat grown right here in the USA without worrying about tariff related price hikes. The average family throws away $500 worth of meat and seafood every year. While good ranchers helps you and avoid this waste with their vacuum sealed, individually wrapped cuts that stay fresh for a year in your freezer. Plus their cuts are pre trimmed by professional butchers, meaning you'll only pay for meat that you'll actually eat. No more trimming 10% off before you're cooking, you get value out of every bite. I've tried many of their steaks and other choices and they're quite possibly the most tender, most tasteful, clean protein options I've ever had. And the convenience of delivery to my door just makes it that much better. Well, here's an amazing offer. Visit goodranchers.com right now. Use my code Walsh to get $40 off your order plus free meat for life. When you subscribe, choose free ground beef, wild caught salmon seed oil, free chicken nuggets or bacon in every box forever. That's $300 of free meat every year for as long as you stay subscribed. In a world of constant change, your meal time can stay consistent and affordable. Visit goodranchers.com today and use code WALSH for $40 off and free meat for life. Good ranchers American meat delivered. You know, people keep asking me to weigh in on every conflict around the world. Israel, Ukraine, whatever. Here's my take. I don't really care. I wish them well, not just America. First, I'm an American chauvinist. I only care about my own country. And if you agree, or if that bothers you and you want something new to be mad about, go to dailywire.com shop and get the American Chauvinist T shirt. Big bold letters. No ambiguity. It's right there. Again, that's dailywire.com shop grab the shirt, wear it. Confuse your neighbors. Ruin somebody's day. Now, let's get to our daily cancellation. I have to confess that before today, I hadn't heard of a man named Dwarkish Patel. But from what I can tell, he hosts a successful podcast that's very popular in Silicon Valley. His marketing slogan states that he conducts deeply researched interviews with some of the most powerful people in the country, which is certainly an admirable objective. But if I may be so bold, I have to offer some criticism of Dwarkesh Patel's latest episode, which features the CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg. It's one of the more unsettling conversations that you'll hear, and a big part of the reason it's unsettling is that Mark Zuckerberg gets away with making certain claims that are obviously false. And instead of being challenged, Zuckerberg proceeds to state his vision for the future of artificial intelligence, which is premised, in some cases, on complete nonsense. We are barreling towards an AI revolution, and the people leading this revolution are not exactly inspiring confidence at the moment. And the first notable moment in this interview comes when Dorkus Patel asks Zuckerberg about some of the more practical day to day uses for artificial intelligence, and Zuckerberg responds by saying that already people are using Meta's in house artificial intelligence to have difficult conversations about situations in their lives. Watch.
