All Episodes
Previous Next
July 22, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
56:02
Ep. 300 - Another Absurd Racism Hoax Is Exposed

Today on the show, a Democratic lawmaker claims she was verbally assaulted by a racist at the grocery store. Shocker: it appears that she lied. Also, a man in Canada is trying to legally force women to touch his genitals. He might actually succeed. Date: 07-22-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a Democratic lawmaker claims that she was the victim of a racist verbal assault at the grocery store.
She made this claim, the media bought it, Democrats bought it, the left bought it, they amplified it, they went with it uncritically.
And then it turns out, shockingly, twist ending, there's more to the story than she originally presented.
So we'll talk about that today.
Also, a man in Canada is trying to legally force women to touch his genitals.
And he might actually succeed because he claims to be a woman.
This is an insane case, which just shows all the problems with the leftist gender ideology.
And we're going to talk about that today also on The Matt Walsh Show.
So my wife was out of town all last week for the entire week, and she came back on Saturday.
You know, there's that whole stereotype that men are incompetent parents who don't know how to function and can't take care of their own kids, especially if the wife isn't around.
I'm proud to say that that's not me, and in my experience, that's not how most men are.
You know, we can take care of our kids.
Perfectly capable.
But as a dad, I just do things a little bit differently.
That's all.
It's a difference in approach, really, is the difference.
Like, for instance, the day before she got back, I realized that I had not bathed the kids all week, you know, which was just, it was an oversight.
I just, I didn't think, I guess my sense of smell isn't quite up to par with my wife, especially because she's pregnant now.
So I just didn't, I didn't sense that they hadn't been bathed.
And so then I realized that they needed to be.
Mainly because my daughter said to me, Hey, we haven't taken a bath in a week, dad.
Like what's going on?
And so what I decided to do was, um, uh, rather than what my wife will do, she'll, she'll give them each a bath separately.
And it's just this whole long, it takes like two hours to go through all the bath.
Well, I thought, I don't have time for that.
So I just lathered them down with Dawn dish soap and I had them run through the sprinkler.
And, uh, and they came out smelling like, just washed plates right out of the dishwasher.
It was great.
And they had fun.
It required no effort on my part, took 10 minutes.
And it's all about efficiency, really.
That's the main thing.
I think with dads, we are very efficient.
Whereas, we're not gonna win points for style, like women will with their parenting,
but we get the job done.
At the end of the day, the job is done and everyone goes home happy.
There's a couple of interesting stories I want to talk about today, but before we do, Let's talk about finding freelance talent for your business or project.
Finding the right freelancer can be time-consuming, even more than giving kids baths.
It's a very time-consuming, frustrating, expensive process.
Where do you find the talent?
How much is it gonna cost?
How can you be certain that they're gonna deliver for you?
Thanks to Fiverr, finding the right freelancer doesn't have to be a struggle.
I've talked to plenty of people who have used this service, and the thing that they always talk about, the word that keeps coming up is simple.
It just makes the search for freelancer so much simpler than it otherwise would be.
It's very just convenient, simple process.
Fiverr's marketplace connects businesses with freelancers who offer hundreds of digital services, including graphic design, copywriting, web programming, film editing and much more.
Find what you're looking for instantly.
Search by service, delivery time, price reviews.
Whatever you want to do, however you want to customize it, that's how you can go about finding it.
There are no surprises.
You'll know exactly what you're paying for upfront, no negotiating needed.
Take five and check out fiverr.com.
You'll receive 10 percent off your first order by using my code Walsh.
It's so easy.
Don't waste any more time.
Get the service you deserve by going to Fiverr.com.
F-I-V-E-R-R.
Don't forget the extra R.
.com.
Code Walsh.
Again, that's Fiverr.com.
Code Walsh.
Okay, now let's talk about the saga of Erika Thomas.
The ballad of Erika Thomas, maybe we should say.
Jussie Thomas, Erika Smollett.
Pick a name.
Erica Thomas is a state representative in Georgia.
Democrat, of course.
Black woman.
She claimed over the weekend that she was accosted, verbally assaulted, by a racist white man at the grocery store.
And she says she was in the express lane, she had too many items, which she admits.
And her reason for this is that she says she was nine months pregnant.
I'm not sure how being nine months pregnant means that you have to be in the express lane, but that's what she says.
Never mind that for now.
So she says that a guy came up to her, a white guy, and said, you lazy son of a B, go back where you came from.
Because she had too many items in the self check or the express lane.
She recorded a video.
There's a couple video clips we're going to play here as we follow this story and watch it come to its climax and its conclusion.
It's kind of a three-act play here we've got.
So here's the first act.
She recorded a video, a live stream, talking about this incident.
Very emotional.
She's in tears.
Watch this.
You know what I decided?
I decided to go live.
Because I'm very upset because people are getting really out of control with this.
With this white privilege stuff.
I'm at the grocery store and I'm in the 10 aisle, the aisle that says 10 items or less.
Yes, I have 15 items, but I'm not much pregnant and I can't stand up for long.
This white man comes up to me and says, you lazy son of a bitch.
You need to go back where you came from.
And he says that.
I said, sir, you don't even know me.
I'm not lazy.
I'm not much pregnant.
He says, you're ignorant.
Okay.
Now I'm look, I'm no prophet.
Um, I am, uh, uh, no seer of the future.
But I saw that video on Saturday morning or whatever it was, and I immediately knew that the story is not exactly as she's telling it.
My BS radar was just blaring.
I could almost hear it in my ears.
I should probably get that checked out, actually, by a neurologist.
But it was going off big time, watching that video.
I mean, even if it was, Even if it did happen the way she says it did, even if it was totally true, collapsing into tears on livestream is completely phony and contrived.
So at a minimum, you know that her reaction is phony.
At a minimum.
Whatever happened to people having disagreements, you have run-ins, heated exchanges with strangers, and then you continue about your day.
Whatever happened to that?
Is nobody capable of that anymore?
Why do you need to tell everybody?
Why are you sobbing about it like a child?
I mean, I've had words with strangers in public before.
It might surprise you to learn.
I've had conflicts before with people, sometimes over stuff like this, the minutia of daily life.
And I don't go home and just collapse into, oh my gosh, she was so mean to me!
I don't do that.
I've never done that.
You just, you're an adult.
You go about your day.
But regardless, it was obvious to me that at a minimum, she's not telling the whole story.
You know, if your BS detector isn't going off watching that, then you do, you must not have a BS detector.
You're the kind of person who, you must be, the only way you could fall for that is if you're the kind of person who gets an email from a Nigerian prince telling you that you've, that you're going to inherit $10 million if you only send your social security number and your bank account information.
And you actually, and you go, oh, my life has been changed for the better.
You have to be that level of gullible.
To fall for what you just saw there.
Because the story doesn't make sense, first of all.
She's in the wrong checkout line and the guy comes up and says, hey, go back where you came from!
Even from the logic, even from the perspective of a racist, just kind of trying to see things with racist logic for a minute, even from that perspective, it doesn't make sense.
Even as a racist, it doesn't make sense.
The whole idea that a racist guy would conveniently use that phrase in that context, the phrase which has been the discussion, the subject of so much discussion this week, and he just so happens to come up and use it for no apparent reason to a Democrat lawmaker.
Come on.
This seems just like Smollett.
It seems just like Smollett.
Because it is a Democrat's idea of what a Republican racist sounds like.
This is someone who, this is their fantasy of what a racist encounter would be like.
In their fantasies, Republicans are the kind of people who just run around screaming, go back where you came from, this is MAGA country!
To random strangers for no reason.
But despite the lack of believability here, still the left seized on her story.
The media reported it, amplified it uncritically.
We've done this over and over again.
We did it with Smollett.
We did it with Covington.
Over and over again we see this.
No questions are asked.
It's just, oh, she said it happened, so it happened.
Hashtag, I stand with Erica, trended on Twitter, which, sidebar for a minute, can we stop standing with people?
I mean, can we have one week on social media where there isn't a hashtag, I stand with whoever?
Every other day, we're all standing with somebody.
What does it even mean, we stand with them?
What does that mean?
You sent a hashtag, you stand with them.
There's no, there's no, doesn't mean anything in the first place.
I stand with Erica.
Democrats blamed it on Trump.
This is Trump's America, etc, etc, etc.
Well, this is where things get interesting.
Thomas, Erica Thomas went back to the store where this hate crime had occurred, allegedly, to be interviewed by reporters.
Remember, she's nine months pregnant and she can't stand Uh, and that's why she was in the express lane, but she can stand out in the heat in the parking lot and talk to reporters.
She could do that.
So you put a camera in front of her face.
Uh, she could stand all day, but no, she couldn't stand for, you know, a couple of minutes in the regular checkout line in the air conditioning.
Couldn't do that.
So she goes back, um, to talk about it and while she is giving her, telling her tale, Doing her whole routine, the guy, the alleged racist, shows up at the parking lot and confronts her.
And already you know, look, if this actually happened...
And this guy really, you know, is a racist and is being exposed.
There is no way he shows up to put his face on camera to announce that he was the guy.
If this is actually true, there's no way the guy shows up.
So the very fact that he even showed up already tells you that, okay, If your BS detector was going off, you were right.
He shows up, he accuses her of lying, and here's the local media report.
Watch how this all unfolds.
I'm a liar about what?
Everything that happened.
Do you feel bad?
Me telling you to go back where you came from?
Do you feel bad about yesterday?
Did I say that?
Yes, why are you serious?
Did I say it?
What did you say to me then?
Is it on video?
What did you say to me?
I called you a lazy b****.
That's the worst thing I said.
That's all you said to me?
Yes.
Okay, because that makes you look better because everybody's after you now.
So that makes you look better to say that.
I know what I said.
It's okay.
She's doing it for political purposes, period.
Like I said earlier, I'm a Democrat.
I will vote Democrat the rest of my life.
Okay?
So to call me what she wants to believe for her political purposes, to make it black, white, brown, or whatever, is so untrue.
He needs to be held accountable because people can't just go out in public areas and berate pregnant women, whether it's because I was pregnant, whether it's because I was black.
Okay, so this guy is a Democrat.
He's a lifelong Democrat.
He says he's going to continue being a Democrat.
He's a Cuban too, he said he's Cuban.
I don't think they showed that in that report, but he said he was Cuban, he's a Democrat.
He admits that he called her the B word, but he says the rest never happened.
Then you see that moment where they're looking each other in the eyes, and he's saying to her, you know this didn't happen.
And right there in that moment, if you are able to detect liars, you can tell right there from that exchange, she knows she's lying.
But what it appears is, here's the interesting thing, he admits that he called her the B word.
So he admits that he called a pregnant woman the B word.
And so Thomas made a classic blunder.
She played the wrong victim card.
Okay, so in the victim game, she played the wrong card.
She could have cried over sexism.
That's how she should have framed this.
If she had just said that this was sexism, that she was attacked, accosted, verbally assaulted by a sexist, toxically masculine, you know, misogynist, then I think she takes the win here.
She wins.
Because the guy said it.
Now, I'm not saying that he's actually sexist for calling her the b-word.
I'm also not saying that's appropriate language to use, but it sounds like she was being a jerk.
She was in the wrong checkout line.
He came up to her, confronted her.
It sounds like there was some kind of exchange.
They were going back and forth.
They were hurling things.
He said some things.
She said some things.
That's what it sounds like.
Um, so that doesn't make him a sexist, but my point is she could have played that card.
That would have been the smarter card to play because he did say the word and that's all that really, as far as society is concerned, all you need to do is say the word and you are the ism that is attached to that word.
But she, she went for the racism card because she just couldn't help herself.
Um, she, she, she had to make it a race thing.
It's compulsive.
She had to do it.
Couldn't control herself.
And so she takes the L instead.
And here she is finally, officially taking the L. Watch.
He said, he said, go back, you know, those types of words.
I don't want to say, he said, go back to your country or go back to where you came from.
But he was making those types of references is what I remember.
Oh, okay, okay.
Well, so he didn't actually say, go back where you came from.
As in the whole thing that made this story go viral, the whole source of her victimhood claim, all the racism stuff, the thing that made her, that reduced her to tears, the thing that she was crying over, didn't happen.
Now she says, eh, well, he didn't really say go back where you came from or go back to your country.
But now, now she says that he just said, go back.
And even if he said that much, which it seems like maybe he didn't even say that.
No, he didn't really say go back.
He just said go.
Okay.
He didn't really say go.
He said, Oh, which rhymes with go, which is the first word in the phrase, go back where you came from.
That's what, you know, it's the same thing, but, um, I didn't say go back where you came from.
He just said, go back.
If he did say that much, it's pretty clear now that he meant go back as in go back to the appropriate checkout line.
So she lied, it seems.
Very much so that she lied.
What a shocking ending to this tale.
Utterly shocking.
Shocking if you've been lying in a coma in a cave 100 feet under the ground for the last 50 years and you just emerged into the sunlight on Saturday, then this is shocking.
You'll be shocked by this.
But of course, if you have been a conscious, sentient being in this culture for the last Whatever amount of time, then you should not be shocked at all.
This is totally expected.
What are the major lessons here that we could take from this?
I think there are three.
One, and these are all lessons that we already know or should know.
One is, yet again, don't believe stories like this without evidence.
I mean, it's so simple.
You hear one side of a story on social media, somebody complaining about something that happened to them or an altercation or something that somebody said, whatever.
You hear one side of the story, there's no evidence.
There's no reason to believe it.
I mean, there are dozens of reasons why a liar might make something up.
It happens all the time.
People lie on the internet all the time.
I have news for you.
All the time.
They do it for political reasons.
They do it for ideological reasons.
They do it because they want attention.
They do it for vengeance.
I mean, they do it just to do it sometimes.
Sometimes people lie because they're liars.
Liars lie.
It's what they do.
So there are so many reasons.
And I'm not, and this isn't just a left right thing.
I think the left is, seems to be much more inclined to making up these kinds of stories
very clearly.
But look, it's the same thing.
I mean, sometimes you hear stories about somebody will say, oh, I was out and I was wearing
my MAGA hat and somebody came up and yelled at me.
Um, I don't believe those stories either, unless there's a video, unless there's more, and sometimes there is video of these kinds of things happening, but if I just hear the story, I'm not gonna believe it immediately.
Oh, well, he said it!
It couldn't possibly be not true.
If you hear stories like this and believe them without evidence, you are either very, very, very stupid.
I mean, You're fantastically stupid, amazingly astronomically stupid, or you're a disingenuous partisan hack, and you know that it might not be true, but you're running with the story anyway because it's convenient for you.
Those are the two options.
Or you might be both.
You might be very stupid and a disingenuous partisan hack, which many disingenuous partisan hacks are stupid.
I mean, it could be both or one or the other, but there's no other, there's no option aside from those two or a combination of them.
For everyone who is not one of those things, we just have to wait.
Whatever the story is, there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe it.
In fact, in general, in life, there's no reason to believe anything unless you have evidence.
There's no reason to believe it unless there is a reason to believe it.
Unless someone presents you with a reason to believe the thing, whatever it is, you shouldn't believe it.
It doesn't mean that you should automatically assume it's not true, but you shouldn't just believe it.
You should be agnostic on the question, whatever it might be, until you've been given reasons to believe it.
That's the first lesson.
Second lesson is that—and this, I think, is a positive—that, look, I'm not saying racism doesn't exist in this country.
We know racism exists.
We know it exists among all races.
And that all different races could be victims of it.
But it appears that racism is relatively rare in this country.
And I draw that conclusion because it's so often now where you have people making up racism claims, where if racism was common, if it was an everyday occurrence as we are led to believe, then Erica Thomas and Jussie Smollett wouldn't need to make it up.
They would have a whole cornucopia, a whole buffet of racist interactions that they could choose from.
There'd be no reason to make it up.
Right?
It would be like bringing your own egg rolls to a Chinese food buffet.
There's no reason.
All the egg rolls you want will be there.
So there would be no reason to make up racism claims.
The fact that these people are making up these claims kind of proves that, well, they want to be victims of racism, and unfortunately for them, society is not providing them those opportunities, and so they have to invent it.
And then the third thing, I think that probably the most important lesson from this, everything else aside, is if you have more than 10 items, Stay out of the express lane.
Okay?
Period.
You got 11 items?
You have 10 and a half items.
I don't care if the item that takes you over 10 is half of a banana.
Whatever it is.
One grape from the produce section.
Whatever it might be.
You don't belong in the express lane.
Okay?
The express lane, 10 items or less, that's it.
Our society, the proper functioning of our society, depends on people following these rules.
I think this is one of the reasons why I am very worried and cynical about humanity's Chances of survival, if there is some sort of apocalyptic type event, like an asteroid strike, zombie invasion, whatever, I think we're screwed.
And the reason why is because of grocery stores.
Walk into a grocery store anytime and you see how people, if the rules are not being strictly enforced at all times, people just ignore them.
I mean, you've got people using the express lane when they should be.
You've got people leaving their grocery carts in the middle of the parking lot.
You've got people, you know, touching produce items and putting them back.
I mean, it's just people are... You've got people, like, opening items to see, and they're like, I don't really want that, and they put it back.
Or you've got people who take an item, and then they go throughout the grocery store, and they decide at some point, oh, I actually don't want this, and they put it back in the wrong section.
It's the collapse of civilization is happening at our grocery stores, people.
So I think this guy, apparently the full story is that this guy, he saw, from what I gathered, he had already been through, but then he saw this woman abusing the express lane.
And so he goes back into the store to confront her.
Yeah, not because he was being inconvenienced, but just because on the principle of it.
And he confronts her on it.
I think that's heroic.
I think he's a hero.
We need more people to do that.
I mean, I'm at the point where I'll do that with shopping carts in the parking lot.
But I think this is what, you know, see something, say something, I think needs to be the approach from now on.
All right, let's move on.
So, from the saga of Erica Thomas to the saga of Jessica Yaniv.
Formerly Jonathan Yaniv.
He's the man who identifies as a woman and is now trying to legally force a number of salons in Canada to wax his genitals.
Yes, that's, if you haven't heard this story, that is, that's the story.
That's what's happening in Canada.
And he might actually win his case.
His case is being taken seriously up there in Canada, where apparently, you know, 75% of the people have lost their ever-loving minds.
And so he might actually win this case.
Just to summarize, Jessica Yaniv decided to identify as a woman at some point.
He identifies now as a lesbian, in fact.
So he's a biological male who likes women, so he's a straight guy.
In other words, there's another way of putting that.
But ever since he transitioned, transitioned in quotes, he has become bizarrely determined to procure a Brazilian wax.
And a Brazilian is something a woman gets done where, well, I'm not going to explain it.
You know, you could look it up if you don't know.
But the thing is, these salons that do Brazilians, Most of them are not, they specific, a Brazilian is specifically a waxing of the female area.
And that's what it is.
That's by definition, that's what it is.
So most of the salons that do this, that's what they do.
They do this for women.
It is a service for women.
And they're not going to do it for men because they don't provide that service.
It's a more delicate procedure, as you could probably imagine.
It's more dangerous, potentially.
So he's gone around to these places.
To try to get the waxing done, and he's been told that, sorry, we only do that for women.
We can't do it for you.
It's not just that we don't want to, which, that should be enough.
If you've got a woman saying, look dude, I don't want to touch your junk, that should be enough.
We hear so much about consent these days.
Well, consent.
I do not want to consent to touching your genitals, sir.
That should be enough.
But on top of that, they're also saying, we don't know how to do that.
We don't, we're not trained in that.
Okay.
Do you really want us?
We're telling you, we we've never done that for a guy.
You really want us messing around down there?
So, their case against this guy is obviously just airtight.
I mean, this is totally clear.
This guy has no even shred of a point on his side.
It's just completely clear that he's totally in the wrong.
But he says, nonetheless, that this is a violation of his human rights.
And he's filed a human rights complaint, because we all have, apparently, the human right, the God-given innate right, which is inherent to our nature as human beings, to get Brazilian waxes.
That's what he's saying.
And just in making this claim, he's already put a number of women out of business, or on the verge of being out of business, because to defend themselves costs money, and they don't all have the money to spend it.
Most of these women are immigrants too.
So he is targeting and bankrupting immigrant women business owners and doing so in an effort to force them legally to touch his genitals.
So let's just, let's go over this again.
This is a man targeting and ultimately in some cases bankrupting immigrant women business owners in an effort to force them to touch his genitals.
This is, I mean, If you're looking for misogyny, sexism, rape culture, any of that, here it is.
On a silver platter, right here for you, served up.
This is a case of it, right here.
Now, this case has been in the news for a while, but up until this week, the identity of this guy has been unknown, but finally that information was unsealed and it's being used in the In the case at the, whatever, the Human Rights Commission up there in Canada.
So again, with the least shocking twist ever in history, we find out that Mr. Yaniv is a degenerate creep and a bigot.
He is just a vile, disturbed, predatory person, which we already knew based on the fact that he was trying to legally force women to touch his genitals, which is a form of legal sexual assault that he's attempting.
So we already knew that.
But it's even worse than you imagined.
The Post Millennial, a Canadian publication, has done a deep dive into this guy's social media postings, and this stuff is very, very disturbing.
I'm going to share some of it with you, just a warning ahead of time, it's very disturbing, graphic, but I think this man needs to be exposed.
Not literally, but he needs to be exposed.
It's clear once you read what he's saying and what he has said, it's very clear that Which again, should have already been clear, that he really wants a woman to touch his genitals, not because he really wants the waxing done.
Okay?
So let me read some of his Facebook posts.
Some of his Facebook posts, tweets, leaked text messages that he sent.
And this again, most of this is from the post-millennial.
Let me pull up some of these.
Okay, so reading a couple.
Here's one back when he was Jonathan Yaniv.
Here's a post where he said, how do I explain this without getting banned on this group and sounding like a racist?
We have a lot of immigrants here who gawk and judge and aren't exactly the cleanest people.
They're also verbally and physically abusive.
That's one main reason why I joined a girl's gym, because I don't want issues with these people, nor do I want anything to do with them in any way.
They lie about stuff.
They'll do anything to support their own kind and make things miserable for everyone else.
So here he is complaining about immigrants, calling them dirty.
He's saying that he joined a woman's gym in part because he wants to avoid the dirty immigrants.
That's what he says.
Um, here he is as Jessica Yaniv on Twitter saying Twitter handle at trusted nerd, by the way, um, in case you wanted, I mean, just in case you wanted to, you know, send him a message or something and just let him know how you feel about this case.
Yeah.
Whether you're pro or con, just maybe you want to give him a little feedback.
I mean, I don't know.
It's up to you, really, but at Trust a Nerd.
So here he is saying, he's talking about, I guess he's advocating for some, talking about a pool that he attends, and he says, I am requesting that we have an all-bodies swim here with allowances for people age 12 plus to go topless if they wish, as it's allowed in law.
So here he is just advocating for topless 12-year-olds at the pool.
You know, hey, I mean, right?
No big deal, right?
And this is a guy who wants access and has access to women's locker rooms and restrooms.
It gets worse.
The Postmillennial has some leaked text messages where he's going back and forth with somebody asking questions about what he might experience in the girl's restroom.
And he has this, and I won't even read all the messages, but there are several messages which show that he has this fixation with girls on their periods and the possibility that he might have an opportunity to help some of these girls on their periods.
He says, talking to this woman, he says, if she wants a tampon, though, referring to a girl in the restroom, if she wants a tampon, though, should I give her one and instruct her on how to use it?
Then he says later, and what would I tell her?
Like, would I go into the stall with her and help her?
Later, he goes back to this theme.
What if she wants to know how to put a pad on?
Then what?
I know eventually I'm going to run into that scenario where someone asks me to help.
At a different point, he asks, if there's like 30 girls in the change room, how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their Genitals showing.
He doesn't use genitals.
He uses a more vulgar term.
At a different point, this now I'm quoting from a report of Daily Caller.
He says, if I notice a girl that's nude below and has a tampon string coming out when I'm changing and doing my stuff, is it weird to approach her to ask her for a tampon or a pad just to bond with her a bit over period stuff?
I really want to make friends in there.
That's a kind of a goal of mine.
Okay, and there are many more.
You go to the Postmillennial or look this stuff up on Google.
There are many more messages of this sort.
As I said, grotesque, disgusting, disturbing, but it's important for all... I mean, this guy, first of all, he is going right now.
He can go into a restroom or a locker room with young girls.
Making it very clear that he is interested in seeing the sites in those areas.
I mean, this guy's a predator.
And this is the same man trying to force women again, legally, to touch his generals.
Trying to force them.
It's mind-boggling.
I don't care how far left you are.
I don't care how liberal.
You could be a pink-haired, feminist, radical, pro-abortion, volunteer at Planned Parenthood, member of PETA.
I mean, all the vegan... I don't care how far left you are.
You have to see what's going on here.
I mean, you've got to see it.
If you have a brain in your head, if you are capable of logical thinking at all, you cannot possibly take this guy's side.
And I think that most people don't.
In fact, I am very confident that the vast majority of people, when they see a case like this, their reaction, at least in their own head to themselves, is, this is nuts.
Literally.
This is crazy.
I think that's the reaction most people have.
But then a sizable chunk of those people feel that they can't say it publicly because they'll be castigated as a bigot.
So they either have to pretend that they're on his side or that they see his point, so to speak.
Sorry, I can't.
They have to pretend that they're on his side or they just remain silent.
But I guess my message to everybody is, listen, Again, no matter how liberal you are, no matter how progressive you want to seem, no matter how tolerant you are, you know that this is crazy.
You know that this guy is a guy.
You know that.
You know it.
I know it.
I know you know it.
You know that I know you know it.
I mean, so don't be ashamed.
There's nothing shameful or wrong with understanding science.
Science is not shameful.
This is a matter of science.
It's also a matter of common freaking sense.
It's clear what this guy's interested in.
He shouldn't have access to locker rooms and bathrooms.
All right.
Last thing.
Dina Hashem.
Let's do a little comedy.
We'll lighten the mood a little bit here at the end.
Dina Hashem is a comedian.
XXXTentacion.
I guess that's how you pronounce it.
I don't know how to pronounce his name.
XXXTentacion is a dead rapper.
He was also a brutal, violent abuser who apparently beat his pregnant girlfriend half to death, allegedly stabbed like seven or eight other people, and he was, it may shock you to learn, he was shot and robbed while carrying 50 grand in cash several months ago.
So he's dead now.
This is, I guess, supposed to be some sort of tragedy, that this violent, brutal abuser died.
He was a violent man who met a violent end, just as Jesus predicted.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Live as an abusive, violent monster, die at the hands of abusive, violent monsters.
That's kind of how this works.
So, when I, I think it was, like I said, several months ago, this guy died.
When I heard he died, I, you know, well, okay, that's what happens to people like that.
I have to admit, I didn't quite shed a tear over it.
The fact that he was an abusive, violent abuser who also rapped, it doesn't make it any more tragic.
I mean, the fact that he could rap does not compensate for the monster, you know, the the the monstrous behavior that he
engaged in, allegedly.
So that was my thought. Anyway, Dina Hashem made a joke about this guy's death.
But the joke, as all jokes do now, sparked controversy.
And eventually it was apparently pulled from a Comedy Central.
Her set was supposed to air on Comedy Central.
They said they were going to pull that joke because people were offended by it.
So let me play for you this very offensive, terrible joke that this comedian told about the guy.
Here's the joke.
Is anyone still mourning XXXTentacion?
I am.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
He's a rapper who was murdered.
He's dead now.
He was shot.
he was on his way to buy a car with $50,000 in cash and somebody shot him and took the money.
Which is very tragic, but I think also would be a very good Venmo commercial.
That's the first thing I thought when I heard that.
Like, I don't have Venmo.
I should get Venmo.
Okay, that's the joke.
I think it's a clever joke.
It's a good joke.
It's kind of morbid, black humor, dark humor.
I think dark humor is not only okay, not only acceptable, but necessary in a society.
You've got to be able to tell jokes about it.
It's like a sort of common human instinct is to Tell jokes about tragic things.
Death, in general, is a tragic thing.
I'm not sure that I would call it a tragedy that this particular guy, given the lifestyle that he led, died.
But regardless, it's dark, morbid humor.
We need to be able to tell those kinds of jokes.
I think it's necessary.
That's a service that comedians provide.
It's an important service.
is finding the humor in things that on the surface don't appear to be funny at all.
That's their job.
It's what they do.
And that's the really clever comedians.
That's how you know if someone is an especially clever comedian, is if they can find situations that do not appear to be on the surface funny.
Now, if it's a situation that everyone can tell is funny, then you don't even need to tell a joke about it because we all get it.
But to find the thing that doesn't seem funny and to find the humor in it, that's the whole gig as a comedian it seems to me.
But people are offended now by that.
Because people are offended by everything.
And this is why you just can't...
You can't give the whiners and the outrage mob an inch.
I think we have to be at a point now where we just completely ignore them.
We don't care about your feelings.
We don't care about your perspective on this.
We just don't care.
I mean, you're offended.
I honestly don't care at all.
It does not matter.
I think that has to be our message.
Your feelings don't matter about this.
They really don't.
I know we're raised that, oh, how dare you say my feelings don't matter?
Well, they don't.
I mean, a lot of times your feelings don't matter.
They're feelings.
Feelings can be irrational.
They're often irrelevant.
They don't matter to me.
Why should I care?
I mean, you could have feelings that people should care about, depending on the situation.
Right?
I mean, if you suffer the loss of a loved one and you're sad about that, then we should care about those feelings.
But in general, every last little emotion that pops into your head, no, we don't have to care about that.
So when it comes to this, XXtentacion, he wasn't your loved one.
He's just a guy that rapped.
And apparently his loved ones, he was in the habit of beating.
So if he was a loved one of yours, I doubt that you love him that much.
Um, certainly apparently didn't love you that much.
So this is just, uh, just ridiculous.
It was a, it was a, it was a fine joke.
And I tell you something, if, if dark humor, if, if morbid humor is not allowed anymore, then Irish people are especially screwed because that's the only kind of humor we have.
You know, if you grow up around people of Irish descent, if you've been around Irish people, all they joke about is just death and suffering is the whole source of comedy.
It's a cultural thing.
So we're in trouble, I think, in that case.
All right, let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
All right, this is from Teresa, I think is probably how it's pronounced.
With two S's, that'd be Teresa.
My name is Teresa and I'm 11 years old.
Congratulations on your 300th show.
I didn't even know I had my 300th.
I've done 300 of these things?
Good Lord, what am I doing with my life?
My dad listens to you all the time.
I agree with you about spiders.
I think they suck out your soul too.
Can you suggest any books about the faith that are good for someone my age?
I asked a priest, but I know, and he said there aren't any good ones.
My dad doesn't know of any either.
One more question.
My dad tells me one day you will rule the world.
What age do I need to be worried about your impending rule and can I do anything to remove myself from your wrath?
Well, she signs it Tess, so I guess Tess would be.
All right, Tess.
I will, even though I will be a brutal, tyrannical, Lovingly tyrannical dictator, I will make an exception for those under the age of, let's say, 16.
So as long as I come into power before you hit your 16th birthday, you'll be fine.
Anyway, as far as books about faith, your priest said there aren't any good books about faith for someone your age?
That is shocking.
There are many good books about faith for someone your age, for people of all ages.
So let me just one off the top of my head.
Fulton Sheen.
Maybe you've heard of Fulton Sheen.
He was a famous American bishop back in the 50s and 60s.
And he wrote a book about Jesus called The Life of Christ.
And he wrote a really long book.
It was like 300, 400 pages.
Which I wouldn't recommend probably for someone your age.
Might be a little bit too much.
You know, you might be biting off a little bit more than you could chew there.
But he also wrote a shorter version of that book.
Much simpler, shorter, condensed.
About 90 pages.
Just talking about Jesus, his life, what he did, the apostles, kind of explaining the significance of all these various things in the Gospels.
And I would recommend that one.
I think someone your age or someone of any age who's able to read would appreciate that one.
So, Life of Christ, look that one up.
Make sure it's the one that's like 90 pages, not the one that's 300 plus.
This is from...
House, I think?
I can't pronounce anyone's name today.
House, Dr. House, is that?
While I agree with your sentiments about paying people according to their merit, the discrepancies you laid out of $0.35 per hour versus $35 per hour is insipid.
People, even the inept ones, need to feel value and self-worth beyond cents on the dollar.
Well, yeah, I hear this a lot, but if you're saying that people need to feel value and self-worth beyond cents on the dollar, I agree that people need to feel value and self-worth that goes beyond the money.
The point of a job, your employer's primary concern is not to help with your self-worth.
Now, they should still treat you with dignity.
They should treat you like a person.
I don't believe in slavery or anything like that or, you know, sweatshops for seven-year-olds.
But still, your employer's primary job is to run his business.
It's not to help you with your self-esteem or your self-worth.
You shouldn't be looking for self-esteem and self-worth in a job in the first place.
Although, you know, inevitably we all kind of do that.
But that's, I think, we shouldn't be looking for it there.
And regardless, look, this is just simple math as far as I'm concerned.
You should be paid what you are worth to your employer based on the work you're doing.
You're not paid based on your worth as a human.
Because your worth goes beyond money.
We're all human beings.
We have infinite value.
So we cannot be paid infinity dollars.
So when it comes down to it, some people are paid $60,000 a year.
Some people are paid $600,000 a year.
It's not that the person paid $60,000 is worth less as a person.
It's just in the marketplace, the labor that they do, that's how much it's worth.
It's a reflection of what they're doing from nine to five.
It's not a reflection of them as a person.
So my point is that if you're sitting behind a register at Burger King or something, and you have a terrible attitude, you're sullen, and you put in minimal effort, you aren't worth that much.
Doing that job.
The work that you're doing is so minimal, so devoid of effort, so devoid of energy, and commitment, and positive attitude and all that, that it's just not worth that much.
And so my argument is there are people standing behind a register at Burger King who are worth 35 cents.
For what they're doing is worth 35 cents.
Because they're doing almost nothing.
And so they should be paid almost nothing.
There are others who are behind registers at Burger King and other places who are worth $35 an hour, possibly, potentially, because their attitude is so good.
They're putting in so much energy.
They make the customer feel good.
They're putting a smile on your face.
They're just putting all of themselves into this job, even if it is a kind of, you know, Just, even if it is, just pushing buttons on a register.
So, I think people should be paid what they're worth for the work they're doing.
Last one from, didn't get the person's name, probably for the best.
I'm a 17-year-old homeschooler and have not missed a single Daily Wire podcast, backstage, or conversation since I started watching in September 2017.
My dad is wondering why he got me interested in politics in the first place.
He started seeing warning signs when he and I were able to have detailed discussions on the policy positions of almost every Republican presidential candidate in the 2016 election.
That's great.
I think you may be misunderstanding the ontological argument.
I have not researched it extensively, but I think it may be saying that the fact that we have the idea of God, whatever God that may be, is proof that God exists.
Because I can imagine an 80-foot tall man with three heads, but that doesn't mean that such a thing exists.
However, where did I get the concept for it?
Height, heads, and men all exist, so I can imagine a combination of the above.
But from what would you draw the concept of God?
And how many individual people would have to do that independently in order for so many disconnected civilizations to independently develop the concept of a god?
I would put to you that we can't imagine anything we don't already, at least in the back of our minds, have a grounding for.
In conclusion, I would state that we believe in gods because we were made for the purpose of bringing glory to God, and how can we do that without an instinctive knowledge of his existence?
And yes, that can be perverted into the worship of false gods, but where would we have gotten the idea to worship anything whatsoever in the first place?
Animals don't worship anything.
First of all, I mean, at 17, that's very impressive that you're thinking through these issues.
Very cogent, very coherent argument you laid out.
What I would say is a couple of things.
First of all, what you're talking about there, I don't think that is the ontological argument.
The ontological argument is an argument, an attempt to argue, that God is logically necessary.
So it's an argument in the vein of all squares have four sides.
That is a logically necessary statement.
It is self-evident.
A square by definition has four sides.
Or if I said that all bachelors are unmarried.
It's self-evident, logically necessary.
Because if somebody is married, then they're not a bachelor anymore.
That's what an argument of logical necessity is.
So, that's what the ontological argument is trying to do, is to prove that God is logically necessary.
As I said on Friday, I respect the attempt.
I like the attempt to try to prove that God is logically necessary.
I think that's going to be, if you can do it, you're going to have a much stronger argument than the evidentiary arguments where you're saying, where you're pointing to evidence and saying, oh, fine-tuning or first cause or any of these things, and saying, based on the existence of this phenomena or thing, it seems like that would lead to the conclusion that God exists.
Those kinds of arguments can be strong also, but they're not going to be as strong as logical necessity arguments.
My point, though, is I don't think the ontological argument is successful in proving that God is logical necessity.
Even if I believe that God is a logical necessity, I don't think those arguments do the job in proving it.
What you're talking about here is more of an evidentiary argument where you're pointing to the fact that people have this concept of God and saying, well, that would seem to indicate that there is a God.
So, I think it's a good argument, but it's not ontological, it's an evidentiary argument.
This is more, if you read C.S.
Lewis, I forget which book he talks about this, probably multiple books, maybe Mere Christianity, he talks about the argument from desire, where he says that, it's related to your argument, not exactly the same thing, where he says that, you know, I have this desire For a reality beyond this one.
I have a desire for a truth beyond, above what I see around me.
I have a desire for God, for an afterlife.
And it seems like if I have a desire for something, there must be something out there that will satisfy it.
And he makes the point that we don't develop desires for things that don't exist.
And I think that's true.
So I think that's actually a little bit of a stronger version of the argument that you just made there.
Because someone could always say, when you say, well, you're not going to develop the idea of something
that doesn't exist.
I mean, that's arguable.
People, I mean, my son, six years old, can sit down and draw a monster or something,
and just something completely out of his imagination.
I mean, you could always say that, yeah, well, he's basing that on things he's seen and so on, but it is something that is purely out of his imagination, something that doesn't exist.
Also, but I think the stronger retort to your argument is, okay, well, maybe you're right, but most people, I think everyone, Our idea of God is based on what we see.
We all kind of imagine God as a guy, as an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne.
I mean, even if we know that that's not what God is, when we're trying to imagine God, we're inevitably going to end up with some kind of image like that.
Or thinking of God as a man, as a very old, wise sort of man.
Again, we know intellectually he's not that.
He's much greater than that.
But when we're trying to imagine him, that's what we end up with.
So I think someone could respond to your argument by saying, well, okay, maybe you're right.
You're not going to have a concept that doesn't exist.
Every concept has to be based on something that exists, but your concept of God is just based on people around you, based on your dad, you know, based on whatever.
That could be the response.
The desire argument, though, is different.
I think there's more to it there, where we do have the innate desire for God, for a reality beyond our own.
That is a very strong desire.
And I think that's where people, or everyone, develops their concept of God.
Even if the concept is wrong, or certainly incomplete, which all of our concepts of God are, it still is, what is pulling us in that direction?
There's a desire pulling us in that direction.
What is that desire?
And C.S.
Lewis would say, look, you can't think of a desire that exists for something that doesn't exist.
We desire food, we desire to drink, we desire sleep, we desire all these things.
We may desire things that are wrong, we may desire things that are sinful, but they all exist.
Like, no one's ever developed a desire for a food that just simply doesn't exist on Earth.
Right?
Or for a desire to perform an activity that doesn't exist anywhere.
So, anyway, I think that's a version of the argument that is A little bit stronger, but the fact that you were able to come up with that and sort of go down that path on your own at 17 is very impressive.
Alright, we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Godspeed.
At every level of society, people are being silenced and controlled by corporate leftist overseers.
That's why when Trump speaks and acts without fear, and sometimes without thinking, it sounds to us like freedom.
That's what this administration is about, and that's what the next election will be about too.
▲
Export Selection