BEST OF: Matt Walsh's Most POPULAR Daily Cancelations

We spent a lot of time focusing on the fact that Hollywood constantly churns out woke propaganda pieces disguised as cinema, and that's, of course, true, and a large part of the reason why audiences are losing interest in movies. This past Thanksgiving box office tally, a time when theaters typically rake in massive amounts of money, saw the weakest performance in over 25 years.
This in spite of the fact that there, or maybe because of the fact, there were multiple sequels to blockbuster franchise films showing. There was a new Steven Spielberg movie.
There was a Disney cartoon about a gay teenage boy and a disabled dog. You know, all these things were in theater and nobody went.
Like I said, wokeness is certainly part of the problem here, but not the whole problem. Because the other issue is that so many movies are boring and dull and simply not anything to get excited about.

And it seems that the people involved in making these cinematic versions of bland, stale graham crackers are aware at some level of how boring and uninteresting it all is.

And that's why they have to go to increasingly desperate lengths to pretend that their films are somehow revolutionary and provocative, even as they serve up the same under-seasoned dish that we've had a million times before. And I think that's part of what was happening this week when Jennifer Lawrence, now somewhat infamously sat down for an interview with Variety, and ended up claiming a title for herself that people older than 10 years old might find surprising, as it doesn't quite gel with our memories.
Lawrence declared that she is the first actress to have ever starred in a Hollywood action film. Now, Jennifer Lawrence is 32, okay? She's not in her 70s or 80s, which she would have to be in order for that claim to have any chance of legitimacy.
But let's watch the clip first. I remember when I was doing Hunger Games, nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn't work, we were told.
Girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead. Oh, absolutely.
And it just makes me so happy every single time I see a movie come out that just blows through every single one of those beliefs and proves that it is just a lie to keep certain people out of the movies, to keep certain people in the same positions that they've always been in. And it's just amazing to watch it happen and watch you at the helm.
Yes, The Hunger Games, released in 2012, that was the first action film with a female lead. Lawrence then noted that it was also a great honor to co-star in the Silver Linings playbook so that she could get a front row seat to Robert De Niro's first film role.
And she's especially humbled to realize that when she played Mystique in X-Men First Class, she was starring in the first superhero movie ever made. Truly a historic career in her own mind, if not in reality.
Because in reality, of course, Sigourney Weaver exists, Linda Hamilton exists, Angelina Jolie exists. There have been many female action stars over the decades.
Going back to Carrie Fisher and Star Wars, even before her, there were others. Jennifer Lawrence is not the first to do anything, nor the best.
She didn't even come up with a new way of doing something. She just followed a script that had long since been written, trying to pretend that she's breaking glass ceilings that have been laying in shards on the ground for decades.
Glass ceilings that, in this case, we should note, never mattered much to begin with. The fact that there are more men starring in action films than women, who cares? It makes sense that most action stars are men, as men typically make more compelling and believable action stars.
Typically. It's a lot harder to make a female actioneer into anything but a silly cartoon.
Sigourney Weaver pulled it off, which is why her performance is still remembered by everyone except Jennifer Lawrence, apparently. And yet more often it ends up being a kind of goofy girl power routine.
Men can also see, a man, it's easier for a male actor to elevate goofy action plots and lend them a certain gravitas. Batman is an absolutely ridiculous concept, okay? It's just absurd.
You got a guy dressed in a rubber costume as a bat running around. It's ridiculous.
And yet every man in the role, except maybe George Clooney, has pulled it off with varying degrees of success. Meanwhile, there's never been a Batgirl that was anything but cringe on steroids.
Because men are more natural for these roles, and generally speaking, they're just better at them. All that to say, there was never a problem of too many men acting in action films.
There were more men than women acting in them up until recently now, because now you can't have a white male lead for anything. But that's not a problem.
It wasn't a problem. Any more than there was ever a problem of there being too many men who are roofers.
You notice that the feminists are always very selective about the professions where they demand representation. I think I've seen maybe one female in my life riding on the back of a trash truck

through the neighborhood. Somehow, though, there's no national discourse about the representation

problem in the waste disposal industry. So it's okay for gender disparities to exist in certain

contexts for feminists. But in reality, it's okay in general.

Gender disparities are natural.

Because men and women are different.

And they gravitate towards different things.

And they have aptitudes in different areas.

Women are better in certain areas generally.

Men are better in certain areas generally.

That's the nature.

That's human nature. It's the attempts to artificially even everything out that tends to always cause more problems than it solves.
But this is somewhat immaterial, because the point here is that Jennifer Lawrence came along after females had already made their entrance into the action film genre. She's trying to recycle progressive victories from a generation before her.
And we've seen this similar charade with, we see this all the time with the left, but we've seen it in Hollywood. We've seen it with other movies, such as when Black Panther was celebrated as some kind of breakthrough because it was a film with a mostly black cast, even though such films have been made by Hollywood for years, for decades.
There have been black superheroes before as well. We had them in the 90s.
So Black Panther didn't pioneer anything. Ross Douthat made this point in his book, Decadent Society, which he quoted in response to Jennifer Lawrence's flub.
And reading from the passage is what he says, the reality of recurrence may be slightly harder for progressives to acknowledge than conservatives because progressivism is more invested in its supposed position at the vanguard of cultural change, pressing boldly on to new frontiers. This makes it difficult for the left to recognize the generational recycling of its ambitions and anxieties.
The fact that many progressive breakthroughs are just the culture cycling back to something that we did not that long ago, up to and including kick-ass female action heroes such as Wonder Woman, who followed a path blazed by Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in the Alien movies, or the robot wrangling Sarah Connor in the Terminator movies, or even the blaster-wielding Princess Leia in the Star Wars 40 years before that, or the African-American heroes in Black Panther. In truth, Black stars were arguably more important in the years of Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor in The Cosby Show and the young Denzel Washington than in our officially representation-obsessed age.
Now, his book, Decadent Society, is about, as you may have guessed, decadence. We are a decadent society in the sense that we, as doubt that has it, are locked in this kind of cultural stalemate, treading water adrift, bored, recycling the same ideas and themes.
Now, I don't agree with all of his thesis, but when it comes to our artistic output, there is no question about it. A decadent society with decadent celebrities clamoring to be cultural revolutionaries in a culture that they have already won.
They already own it. And that ultimately is why Jennifer Lawrence is today canceled.
Let's talk about sleep, or rather the lack of it. You know what I'm talking about? Staring at the ceiling at 2 a.m.
while your mind helpfully lists everything you need to do tomorrow and the next day and possibly for the rest of your life. The nighttime productivity that we never asked for.
And that's why I'm so excited to share something that's made a real difference in my life, Beam's Dream Powder. Beam is a proudly founded in America run by people who share our values, hard work, integrity, and delivering results.
It's a science-backed, healthy nighttime blend packed with ingredients shown to improve sleep so you can wake up refreshed and ready to take on the day. Unlike those nights when your alarm feels like it's mocking you.
Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients. Reishi, magnesium, L-theanine.
You're really going to have me read all this. Apigenin and melatonin.
I know that one. Anyway, fancy words.
It's all stuff that you want. It means that you're going to sleep, but that's what it means.
So that's all. My team and I are proud to partner with Beam so we can get the rest we need after we have busy days of work and finally feel like we can tackle life head on instead of shuffling through the day.
Beam has already improved over 17.5 million nights of sleep, helping people across the country wake up and feel their best. Here's the deal.
Beam is giving my listeners the ultimate Patriot discount of 40% off. Try their best-selling dream powder.
Get up to 40% off for a limited time. Go to shopbeam.com slash Walsh.
Use code Walsh to check out. That's shopbeam.com slash Walsh.
Use code Walsh for up to 40% off. Support an American company, invest in yourself, and start getting your best sleep tonight.
For our daily cancellation today, we take into consideration a recent viral video from a woman who insists that although she's morbidly obese, you must still find her physically attractive. You're not entitled to your own opinions or preferences.
You must fall madly in love with her. This is not a suggestion, but rather a requirement, as she clearly explains.
Listen. Hey, bestie.
You're wrong. I think it's time for another adult pre-K lesson.
What do you think? All right. Turn your listening ears on as you catch a bubble in your mouth.
Good job. Okay, here's the thing.
Having a preference is something like, I'm looking for a partner who likes kayaking or wakes up early in the morning or loves pizza. But when your preferences exclude an entire group of marginalized people, that's problematic.
Okay, that's not nice. That's not a preference.
If you lump all fat people in one group together as though they are not very different individuals, that's fat phobic. Just like lumping all black people in one group and saying, I don't like black people is racist.
And lumping all disabled people in one group and saying I don't think people in wheelchairs are hot is ableist. Do you understand what I'm saying? No, I don't.
Okay, so well, okay, so you are allowed to prefer a partner who likes kayaking, which thankfully I think lets us off the hook. Because something tells me she's not exactly an avid kayaker.
But those loopholes aside, it seems that our friend here has stumbled on a rather unique pickup line. Part of me wishes that I had thought of this when I was single.
Like, ma'am, you are morally obligated to find me attractive. Now come and date me at once, lest you be guilty of problematic and exclusionary behavior.
But something tells me I would have struck out as badly with that line as I'm sure she does. The only difference is that I would have been arrested for harassment and stalking on top of it.
Now, a few points to make here. First of all, this woman and my 12 seconds of research tells me that her name is Lexi.
And the research was just looking at the bottom of the video there where it says her name. She has a problem that goes beyond her weight.

If Lexi finds that most people don't want to be around her,

it probably is because of her god-awful personality.

I, for one, would rather take a bath in battery acid than be stuck in a room with her for any length of time.

And that's got nothing to do with her appearance.

It has everything to do with her demeanor, her attitude,

tone of voice, and just way of being. This is something that anyone who struggles to find a partner should take into consideration.
Before wondering whether you're being discriminated against based on your physical features, please reflect on the possibility that you might be a nagging, miserable shrew. Now, it can be hard even for the most attractive person to find or at least maintain relationships if they have a repulsive personality.
But if you're not a top-notch physical specimen, and most of us aren't, and you also have the character and general disposition of the Wicked Witch of the West, then you really have put yourself in a hole with only yourself to blame for it. Second point, she says that you aren't allowed to exclude entire groups of people from your sexual preference.
But that, of course, is exactly what a sexual preference is. That's what any kind of preference is, actually.
Preferences exclude by definition. All preferences do.
Any preference is exclusionary and discriminatory. That's the whole point.
You're preferring one thing over another. one person over another.
As for sexual preference specifically, gay men exclude her because she's a woman. Is she going to berate them for that? Well, she might, I guess.
As we've seen, for years, the left insisted that sexuality is innate and immutable. It can't be changed and it's not the result of choice.
But more recently, they decided that their own arguments no longer hold.

Your sexuality can become problematic if it excludes so-called marginalized groups. A gay man who isn't attracted to a woman who identifies as a man is now a transphobe.
A straight man who isn't attracted to a man who identifies as a woman is also a transphobe. Anybody who isn't attracted to an obese person is fatphobic.
Anyone who isn't attracted to shrill, hectoring, condescending scolds like Lexi is whatever kind of phobic that applies to. Your sexuality is not your own business.
It is not a private matter anymore, as the left had previously insisted. They will decide who you should be attracted to.
And quite often, coincidentally enough, the person putting themselves in the position to make this choice for you will decide that you should be attracted to them personally. Funny how that works.
You know, it's like, well, I've run the numbers and I've done the calculations. And it turns out that in order to not be a bigot, you're supposed to be turned on by, what does it say here? Oh, me.
Sorry, I don't make the rules. Well, I guess I do, actually.
Third point, briefly, referring back to the first. This seems to be something that a lot of people do, even if they aren't on the left.
When people have trouble forming and maintaining relationships, both sexual and platonic, they develop a victim complex, deciding that the problem in their personal and romantic lives is that everyone else is being mean to them. And this only exacerbates the problem because nobody wants to be around someone with a victim complex.
Even people with victim complexes don't want to be around other people with victim complexes. In fact, people with victim complexes especially don't want to be around other people with victim complexes because then it becomes a zero-sum game, a sort of victimhood competition.
The self-determined victim becomes all the more isolated as a result, and their victim mentality only hardens and spreads and metastasizes over time. So if you're looking around and finding that most people don't want to be around you, don't find you appealing or attractive on any level, you could start pointing fingers and making demands, or you can begin the difficult work of changing yourself.
And this process should be one that includes both the exterior and the interior, both physical and spiritual. Although this is hard and painful and it requires the kind of honest self-assessment that most people don't have the wherewithal to conduct, the good thing is that you actually have control over yourself.
Yourself is a thing you can change by the grace of God. You can't really force anyone else to change.
All you can do is scream at them as they back ever farther away until you're all alone yelling into the void. It's up to you which strategy you choose.
We know which one Lexi has chosen and for that reason reason today, she is, of course, canceled. Today, we're going to be canceling Samantha Lux, who is a YouTuber and, quote, trans woman.
That is a biological male with a YouTube channel. Actually, a quite popular channel with well over 600,000 subscribers somehow.
Sam has many videos promoting transgenderism and quite often responding to perceived instances of transphobia. One of the most recent videos on the channel targets, if you can believe it, none other than the leading LGBT children's author on the planet, yours truly.
Sam stumbled across my children's book, Johnny the Walrus, which is still available for pre-order over at johnnythewalrus.com, by the way, and does not approve. Specifically, my video where I read the book to a group of children has provoked Sam's ire in a video titled, Transphobes Are Writing Children's Books.
Trans Girl Reacts. This is good.
I am sincerely interested to hear how a trans girl, quote unquote, reacts to Johnny the Walrus. Perhaps this will be a point-by-point rebuttal.
Perhaps evidence and science and logic and bulletproof moral arguments will all be marshaled. And by the end of the video, I will have completely changed my mind, realized the error in my ways, repented of my anti-trans beliefs.
Maybe even because of this video that we'll watch together, I will become trans myself. It's possible.
So let's watch some of this and see what our friend Samantha Lux brings to the table. Now, if you're familiar with the content that I create here on my channel, if you're familiar with the arguments that conservatives love to make about trans people, you would be familiar with transphobes' claim that we are indoctrinating their children, that we're making their children gay, that we're forcing their young tomboy daughter to become a boy.
That's not who me who me i would never i love you trans girl i love your tomboy daughter she is great what i don't love is a hypocrite matt walsh if you are not familiar with is like an infamous transphobe on youtube this posted a video one week ago reading his book johnny the walrus to a bunch of little kids. Okay, so we're off to a rough start here already.
A few points. First, I do not believe, Sam, that you are forcing any child to do anything or making any child do anything.
I am accusing you and your fellow propagandists of trying to heavily influence children with falsehoods, distortion, lies, and other forms of insanity that they, the children, do not have the mental capacity to sort through. So indoctrination does not often involve physical force because you cannot physically force someone to believe something.
Belief requires mental assent, not physical assent. But you can coerce and trick people into believing things.
And when they're children, that's very easy to do, as you know from experience. Also, by the way, I appreciate being called infamous and I won't take any issue with that label, but I am not an infamous transphobe because I'm not a transphobe at all.
And when I say I'm not a transphobe, I'm not saying it to gain your approval or to convince you that I'm not bigoted.

You know, I couldn't give it less of a damn if you think that I'm bigoted or not. I mean, it doesn't matter to me.
I am instead concerned with definitions. And the definition of phobia

is irrational fear. I'm not afraid of trans people.
If I was, I wouldn't spend so much

of my time saying things that I know will make you angry. My fear, and it is not irrational, is of the effect that trans propaganda has on society, and especially on kids.
Okay? So we have that clarified. Let's continue.
We're going to have to skip around a little bit because Sam's video is long, and it seems like a little too self-involved, even for me, to spend too much time reacting to somebody else reacting to one of my videos. But we'll watch enough to get the gist and to discover whether Sam will be able to make any arguments that will disprove or undermine my central points.
Let's keep going. All right.
Do you understand the comparison that's going to be happening here? He's like, this book is about a little boy who thinks he's a walrus and his mom, you know, also is convinced that he's a real walrus. Do you get the correlation? It's going to be about a little boy that thinks he's a girl or something.
And the mom is convinced that he's a real girl. How creative, how did you ever come up with such a creative, powerful analogy for children who don't understand what you're talking about? Yeah.
Well, you're right. It's not creative.
It's not creative at all. I mean, the comparison between somebody identifying as a different sex and someone identifying as an animal has been done a million times.

I'm not the first to do it.

South Park did it a decade ago.

But the problem is that nobody on your side has ever come up with anything approaching

an effective response to the analogy.

You've never been able to explain why it's wrong.

All you can do, all you ever do is just scoff that you've heard the point before.

Well, we know you've heard it and you're going to keep hearing it over and over again until you answer it. All right, let's continue.
What is this thing doing at the home? We don't have to worry about that. We're going to read the book now.
This man has never met a kid in his whole life, never interacted with one child. He's like, I don't give a shit.
Sit down, we're going to read the book. I'm here for half an hour and then I got to go.
So sit down so I can film. Okay.
Thank you, Brad. No, I think, um, I think the problem is that you've never been around a dad before, which maybe I would have already guessed.
Um, I'm around kids all the time because I have four of them, but so I, but I have by now developed a critical case of dad syndrome. And that means that I'm just snapping my fingers and I'm keeping people on task.
That's what I do. I'm dad.
You should see me during chore time every night in my house. You, get over there, pick up those shoes.
You, come over, vacuum the rug. I don't even remember anybody's names anymore.
That's another symptom of dad syndrome. Okay, skipping ahead.
But Johnny's mom's phone said it's not just pretend. So she went on her phone and there were people telling her that this isn't pretend.
He's really a wal Only a bigot would say that how dare you offend. What's a bigot anybody know? Kids are I don't even I don't know how old these kids are I'm not good at estimating age, but they don't know what you're talking about You don't see their face Did he run this past like an actual children's author and be like read it to a kid and see what they thought before he published it? I think just went for it of course they don't know what a bigot is they're four i mean it does make sense that he would go for children because you know they have the same capacity for intellectual thought as him like babe if you're gonna write a children's book write it for children write it using words that they understand and that they know and that you don't have to explain for them to understand what you're trying to say through your book.
First of all, don't call me babe. Second, did I run it by an actual children's author? Yes, I ran it by myself.
And when myself came to myself and said, self, what do you think of this children's book idea? Myself responded, self, that's an exceptional idea. So I did get the go ahead from an expert in the field of children's literature, if that matters to you.
Now, Sam also says that some of these concepts are above a child's head. Yeah, Sam, that's the point.
Now you're getting it. If a silly story about a kid transitioning into a walrus is inevitably too weird and abstract for children, then what happens if we mix sex and gender into it? Does it suddenly become more appropriate for children? If a child, as you say, isn't even old enough to understand what a bigot is or to hear the word, then is he old enough to be introduced to a concept like transgenderism? If he can't understand bigots, can he understand what it means for a boy to have a girl mystically trapped inside him? If my book is above his head, what about a choice that will fundamentally change his life and alter him physically and biologically forever? Is that above his head too? What do you think? Connect the dots, Sam.
You can do it. You'll need to eat worms and to put on gray makeup.
The worms give you whiskers. The gray blends you in, the doctor says.
And a simple procedure cuts feet into fins. The doctor wants to cut into Johnny and make him into a walrus.
It's gross eating worms, mom. They're all so dang twitchy.
He doesn't want to eat worms. Our children's...
you see what he's doing here? With the analogies that he's drawing, he's arguing that parents are forcing their young children to take medications that they don't want to take, they don't want to take or to have surgeries that they don't want to take or to transition when they don't want to transition that's not what happens you know children have a say in the process children are allowed to make their own decision of course with the help of medical professionals of course of course but like this whole part that Johnny's like I don't want to eat worms that would be the end of it that's the end Johnny doesn't want to eat worms. No worms for Johnny.
No worms. I will say we got exactly the reaction to the doctor page with the bone saw that I had in mind when we included that page.
And I fought for that page. Now there was, I will tell you a little bit behind the scenes, there was some discussion over here about that particular page with the doctor with the bone saw chasing the child.
And I fought for that. I said, that's got to be in there.
And it was. No, Sam, but see, you say children make their own decisions, but children can't make their own decisions.
If I'm arguing that a certain course of action is harmful for a child, bad for them, damaging to them, it does no good to retort that the child wants to do it. Children who want to do harmful things should still be prevented from doing those things.
Why? Because they're children. They don't understand what they're saying.
They don't know what they want. And often they don't actually want what they think they want.
At Red Robin the other day, my five-year-old told me he wanted to order salmon for his dinner. Now, I knew damn well that that kid did not want salmon.
He wanted chicken tenders and fries because that's what he always wants, and it's the only thing he'll ever actually eat at a restaurant. So I didn't let him have the meal that he wanted because I knew that he didn't really want it because he's a kid.
And that's just for something as frivolous as a meal at Red Robin. What if your son says he wants to become a girl? Or a salmon, for that matter.
Not only can you be sure that he doesn't really want that because he doesn't understand what he's saying, or what it means, or what the implications are, because he can't, because he's just a kid. But also, in this case, whereas it's at least possible to actually order salmon, it's not possible for him to actually become a girl.
Which is reason enough to not give him what he says he wants. All right, let's skip ahead again and see if Sam saves the best rebuttals for the very end.
What's the moral of the story? What's the lesson here? Aren't children's books supposed to have like a lesson that's, you know, clear? Because I don't know what this is trying to say. I don't know what this lesson here is.
The other lesson is don't listen to the creepy people in your phone don't trust medical professionals while horses are mean like oh my goodness maybe take a writing class or something ask a kid like do you know what this book is about because none of them did like you could argue that this book is made for adults write a book for adults write a book for adults or is it that you have to dumb down these analogies and these arguments for children brain because they don't hold any weight in actual adult language? But yeah, that is it for this video. What do you guys think? You're gonna go get Johnny the Walrus the book? Hmm? Well, since you asked, what do I think? I think you should probably in the future have some kind of rebuttal if you're gonna make a rebuttal video.
You rebutted my points in the same way that my dog rebuts the deer that he sees running through the backyard by just barking incoherently at them. You're right that I did dumb down the arguments and analogies, but apparently I wasn't able to make them dumb enough for you to understand.
My story about a kid pretending to be a walrus was, it would seem, slightly above your reading level. And that's a shame because it's a message

that you might have really benefited from. And instead, I'm forced to say, finally, Samantha

Lux, that you are sadly, tragically, canceled. But everybody else can buy my book, Johnny the

Walrus, at johnnythewalrus.com. And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching. Thanks

for listening. Have a great day.
Godspeed.