Ep. 558 - Facts Don't Matter To Black Lives Matter
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, BLM lies and fabrications lead to more protests. As we have learned, facts don’t matter to Black Lives Matter. But here's a really crazy idea: Maybe, instead of blaming the police for choices that criminals make, we might consider blaming the people actually making the choices. Also Five Headlines including Joe Biden race baiting, California Democrats moving to decriminalize pederasty, and Harry and Meghan sign a Netflix deal and promise to make some of the worst programming the world has ever seen. Finally, in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll talk about the black college professor from “the hood” who just confessed to being a white Jewish girl from suburban Missouri.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, BLM lies and fabrications lead to more protests.
And as we have learned, of course, facts don't matter to Black Lives Matter.
But here's a really crazy idea.
Maybe instead of blaming police for choices that criminals make, we should start at some point to consider blaming the people who actually make the choices.
I don't know.
Also, five headlines, including Joe Biden race-baiting California Democrats moving to decriminalize pederasty.
And Harry and Meghan sign a Netflix deal and promise to make Some of the worst programming the world has ever seen, I'm sure.
Finally, in our daily cancellation, we're going to talk about the black college professor from, quote, The Hood, who just confessed to being a white Jewish girl from suburban Missouri.
So, lots to cover today, but we're going to begin with our good friends over at Rock Auto.
Listen, it's still hot out.
You know, we aren't out of the woods yet with the heat, especially because of global warming, they tell me.
So, that's why you don't want to be waiting around at the shop for your car to be done.
RockOuter.com is so much easier.
Much better solution.
You can take advantage of it from the air-conditioned comfort of your home.
Unless you don't have air conditioning, you absolute savage.
RockOuter.com always offers the lowest prices possible, rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do, like a lot of industries do.
You know, why split up to twice as much for the same parts?
Here's what I really love about RockAuto.com.
Most of all, it's a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
There's a huge selection, and best of all, prices at RockAuto.com are always reliably low, and they're the same, you know, no matter if you're a professional, do-it-yourself, or whatever it is.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
The RockAuto.com catalog is unique.
Easy to navigate and you can quickly see all the available parts for your car or vehicle.
And you can choose from the brand specifications and prices you prefer.
So, that's what it comes down to.
Amazing selection.
Reliably low prices.
All the parts your car will ever need.
rockauto.com Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so that they know that we sent you.
Okay.
Or that I sent you, really, specifically.
That's what this is about.
Now, I would...
You know, I would say that protests erupted in D.C.
this week over the officer-involved shooting of a black man, but that would be the wrong way to put it.
Protests could not erupt because they were already happening.
Cities across the country have been in a state of perpetual protest for weeks and months now.
New events are simply tossed like more logs into the fire.
Protests are not really in response to the events.
It is more that the events are fabricated to feed the protest.
So this time, word was spread on social media that a, quote, child had been shot, quote, in the back by police.
BLM activists took to the streets, ranting and raving about the cold-blooded execution of an innocent kid.
Witnesses on the ground, well, not witnesses of the event, but witnesses to other alleged witnesses who supposedly saw it or heard about it or heard from someone who talked to someone who saw it.
They said that the, quote, child was also, quote, unarmed.
So here's one such witness, thrice removed, reporting what she saw or rather what she heard about from other people who supposedly saw it.
Listen to this.
I'm actually servicing a group of students and we heard shots fired and we came over to see different police and we found out a 17-year-old was shot by the police officer.
And do we have any details from the community on what happened?
One thing is the young man was unarmed.
That's one detail and everyone is just heartbroken right now and disbelieve that a police officer would take a young man's life.
Mm-hm.
Some people were saying he was shot in the back.
Is that something that can be verified, or is it too early to say?
I guess it's too early to say.
It's too early to say, because there's been some things where he was shot in the back, and then we've also heard that he was shot in his chest.
So it's too early to say.
Yes, the one thing we know for sure is that he was unarmed.
That's the one detail we know.
That's the one thing we can say for sure based on the unassailable testimony of some random people on the street who I just talked to 12 seconds ago.
But as we are, of course, stuck here in this eternal time loop like Groundhog Day, but with More racial strife and less Bill Murray.
The next part of the story unfolded, you know, exactly as expected.
Almost everything we heard from the activists and supposed witnesses was false.
DC police held a press conference on Thursday, released the body cam footage of the officer who filed the fatal shot.
In fact, let's go to the press conference.
Here's the police chief describing what actually happened.
Yesterday at about 3.49 p.m., uniformed members of the 7th District were in the area of the 200 block of Orange Street SE to investigate the report of a man in possession of a gun.
Officers had seen a live stream video on social media of the man with the gun and knew him from previous contacts.
As officers exited their patrol car to approach a parked car that was occupied by multiple men, two individuals fled on foot.
and officers pursued them.
One of those men brandished a firearm from his waistband as he was fleeing.
In response, an MPD officer just discharged his service weapon, firing a single shot at the individual.
The individual sustained a single gunshot wound to his chest.
Officers initiated first aid to the man and members of the D.C.
Fire and EMS transported him to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The decedent has been identified as 18-year-old Dion Kaye of Southeast D.C.
Officers did recover a firearm that we believe that Mr. Kaye was in possession of at the time of the incident.
In fact, he actually understates the case there.
The body cam clearly shows that the suspect, Dion Kaye, 18 years old by the way, not a child, is running towards the officer with his gun drawn.
Let's take a look at that body cam footage right now.
I'm going to show you a little bit of that body cam footage.
Where is it?
Where is it?
I don't know.
I'm looking for the gun.
He's up there.
So, he was not unarmed.
He was not shot in the back.
He had been spotted earlier in the day driving around town brandishing his guns.
Kay had shot a live stream video of himself and his friends waving their guns around.
We're told that officers recognized Kay, knew him to be, as they put it, a quote, validated gang member.
But none of this matters in our post-truth society.
Those who claim that Kay was an unarmed, innocent child shot in the back by a white supremacist only to find out that Kay was actually an armed adult gang member shot in the chest by a Hispanic officer while brandishing his weapon simply ignored the new revelations or else seamlessly transitioned into a new story about a remorseful suspect who was just about to throw his gun away before a callous officer shot him dead.
Little effort is made anymore to come up with a plausible narrative.
You know, we've reached a point where the facts simply do not matter, period.
This was evidenced elsewhere this week when protests began, again, the word began is used loosely here, in Rochester over the death of Daniel Prude.
Now, he died several months ago after asphyxiating with a hood over his head while in police custody.
Prude was in custody because he was running naked through the streets at 3 o'clock in the morning while high on PCP.
The hood was placed over his head because he was spitting on the arresting officers after telling them that he had COVID.
Remember, this was also in March, in the early days of the COVID hysteria.
The medical examiner report lists delirium and PCP intoxication as contributing factors in his death.
Once again, though, Backs don't matter.
What matters is how people feel.
Well, certain people anyway.
Doesn't matter how the police officers feel.
Doesn't matter how business owners and residents feel when their livelihoods are destroyed by looters and rioters.
NPR just published an interview with Vicky Osterweil, who's the author of a book called In Defense of Looting.
One of the defenses she offered for the looting in the interview, I'm not making this up, is that looting feels good.
She says, direct quote, It provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure.
It helps them imagine a world that could be.
And I think that's part of it that doesn't really get talked about.
That riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory.
Yes, it isn't talked about because it's insane, Vicky, you psychopath.
So, the people victimized by looting, their feelings don't matter.
That doesn't matter.
It also doesn't matter how the past victims of lionized criminals like George Floyd feel, or Jacob Blake, how their victims feel when they see their tormentors and abusers hailed as civil rights martyrs.
As it turns out, feelings matter about as much as facts.
All that really counts is the far-left ideological agenda.
Feelings and facts are weighted according to their usefulness to that agenda.
And I actually think this is an important point to emphasize, because if somebody valued feelings over facts, they'd be wrong and irrational, but if they used that scale consistently and applied it to everyone, we'd have to at least admit that they're empathetic, which is a positive trait.
Empathetic to the point of madness, I grant you, but empathetic nonetheless.
Yet when you look at BLM militants or rioters or looters, Do you see empathy?
Do you see any great concern for the feelings of others?
When you look at Antifa, is that what you see?
No.
They are not only dismissive of facts, but also dismissive of the impact their actions have on others.
If they care about feelings at all, it is only their own feelings.
Nobody else's.
In a world where meaningful reflection is possible, it would be worthwhile to step aside here and consider why events like the Dion K shooting actually happen.
So, pretending for a moment that we live in such a world, let me suggest that these events have very little to do with police officers.
All of the police reform in the world won't stop men like Dion K for getting themselves hurt or killed, if not by police, then by somebody else.
Amid the panic over police shootings and the never-ending dissection and second-guessing of the actions of police officers, rarely does anyone stop to ask questions about the suspect.
And that's too bad, because several very good questions could be asked.
Speaking specifically of Dion K., though similar questions arise in many of these situations, we might ask, why was he riding around town waving his gun around?
Why did he advertise his crimes on a public forum for all to see?
Why did he run when the police arrived?
Why did he draw his gun?
If he had made different choices anywhere along that chain, he'd still be alive today.
If the police did anything wrong, which they didn't, it would be in their reaction to the bad choices of Deon Kaye.
With extremely rare exception, this is almost always the case in police shootings.
Even the bad ones are, in nearly every case, a bad reaction to a bad choice by the other guy.
Yet we're never supposed to question those choices, the first choices, the other guy's choices.
We're supposed to start our investigation further down the line.
And this is why it's always concluded that officers are horrible sociopathic murderers, because we assess their reaction independent of the thing they're reacting to.
Which is like, if I'm driving recklessly and I swerve into oncoming traffic, and you happen to be in the oncoming traffic, and so you swerve too and kill someone, but the accident investigators completely ignore my role in it.
That'd be great for me, but you're screwed because now it will automatically look like you were drunk or reckless, when really the drunk and reckless person was me.
And even if you were drunk and reckless, making the whole thing much worse than it had to be, it still wouldn't be fair to arbitrarily absolve me of all blame and act like I had nothing to do with it.
And it's even more important in cases like this to try and uncover the reasons behind Dion K's behavior, because there are a lot of Dion K's in D.C.
and every other major city in America.
There is, if you like, a systemic problem, an underlying problem.
But it has nothing to do with the police.
And the symptoms of this problem are well known.
Crime, violence, murder, drugs, all these things that plague these communities.
That's why the police are more involved, you know, in these communities, and more interactive.
And why police interactions are more likely to turn violent.
Only a vanishingly small percentage of arrests turn deadly, but the more crime you have in a community, the more arrests, the more people killed by cops.
It's a very simple formula, really.
It's not confusing.
So again, the conversation must go back to the crime.
Why is the crime happening?
If you have an 18-year-old guy running around town, brandishing gums, live-streaming it on Instagram, pretending like real life is a rap video, then he draws his gun on police and gets shot, it is just the height of absurdity to suggest that the problem is the police and not the culture and upbringing that led him to make those choices.
Now, I don't know Deon Kay's specific family situation.
I think I could make a pretty educated guess, but What I can say is that for many guys like Deon K, they grow up without fathers in the home.
They are missing a strong male role model.
Someone to show them what to do with all of that masculine energy and aggressiveness.
Someone to direct them towards healthy outlets for the innate need they have to be seen as tough and strong and intimidating.
A desire that all boys have.
A desire that should not be suppressed, but rather directed.
If it's not directed, or perhaps harnessed is a better word, that's when very bad things happen.
So, in these crime-ridden communities in the city, if a boy has no male role model, no one to direct and harness his masculine energy, he will end up looking in two places for that direction.
One, to his peers, who are just as lost as he is, and two, To the media, pop culture, especially rap music.
In those Instagram videos, Deon K is literally acting out rap music while listening to it.
He is imitating it in real time.
And that's unfortunate because the music explicitly glorifies drugs, violence, and criminality.
What happens then when a kid with no father, no male role model, Pumps those kinds of messages into his ears all day, every day, all throughout his formative years, and lives in an environment that, in all the wrong ways, mirrors those same messages.
Well, we see what happens.
Baltimore happens.
Chicago happens.
D.C.
happens.
But we aren't supposed to talk about the culture, the upbringing, or lack thereof.
No, when a kid has no father figure, no male role models, and his mind spends all of its formative years marinating in messaging that expressly glorifies suicidal criminal behavior, and then he actually goes and commits suicidal criminal behavior, the issue is the police, somehow.
Just the police.
It's not a problem of culture, it's not a problem of bad upbringing, it's not a problem of bad choices.
Nothing and no one else is to blame but the police.
A man can make a hundred bad choices in a day, all leading to the final bad choice of drawing a gun on a cop, and somehow the cop is to blame for everything, all of it, the whole chain of events?
Nobody else.
Nothing else.
Nothing else to see here, folks.
Just the police.
That's the only thing to talk about.
Right.
No.
No, that's not the only thing to talk about.
There's a lot more to talk about, and I think it's time we start talking about it.
Let's get to five headlines.
We'll get right to the inevitable Joe Biden moment while speaking to people at a church.
You know, he got away from race baiting and throwing police under the bus for a moment to talk about taxes for some reason.
But then he stopped himself and this happened.
Nineteen corporations making a billion dollars a piece don't pay a single penny in taxes.
I don't want to punish anybody, but everyone should pay a fair share.
I can lay out for you.
I won't now because they'll shoot me.
But here's the deal.
They'll shoot me.
Yeah, Joe, not the best joke, given the circumstances.
Earlier in the day, the Biden campaign, speaking of race baiting, released an ad.
And it is... I almost hesitate to say it because there's so much competition, but it is perhaps the most disingenuous and misleading political ad I've ever seen in my life.
Here's how that went.
Why in this nation do black Americans wake up knowing that they can lose their life in the course of just living their life?
Part of the point of freedom is to be free from brutality, from injustice, from racism, and all of its manifestations.
We have to let people know that we not only understand their struggle, but they understand the fact they deserve to be treated with dignity.
They gotta know we're listening.
Reforming policing in this country means creating a national standard on use of force and conditioning federal funds for police departments on adoption of that standard.
It's about reining in qualified immunity.
We hold police officers accountable.
We can't turn away.
Now is the time for racial justice.
I believe with every fiber in my being, we have such an opportunity now to change people's lives for the better.
It's about who we are, what we believe, and maybe most importantly, who we want to be.
Now is the time for racial justice, he says, at the age of 78, after spending like five decades in public service.
Now is the time?
It wasn't before, Joe?
You're just deciding right now is the time?
I mean, you've just now decided that white supremacist police officers are out murdering black people in droves, and we should stop them?
Did you not want to stop them before?
Or did you only recently decide that this problem existed?
If so, what made you decide that, Joe?
I could ask the same question about when you exactly decided that women can have penises and men can get pregnant, because that apparently you believe now also.
That seems to be a, you know, a rather new point of view and a kind of a strange point of view for a person to adopt in their 70s.
Biden lived his whole life, then got to the age of like 75, suddenly he woke up in a world where racist cops are murdering black people and men are running around having babies.
He never, never mentioned anything about any of this before.
Now, all of a sudden though, He's talking about it.
This has got to be the weirdest flip-flop in American history.
And the media never asks him about it.
He's never asked to justify it.
Never.
They never say, hey Joe, when did these hallucinations begin?
Also in the ad, Joe asks, why in this nation do black Americans wake up knowing that they could lose their life in the course of just living their life?
What?
That's the case for all Americans and all people.
Everyone eventually loses their life in the course of living their life.
When else are you going to lose it?
Are you going to lose your life after you've already lost it?
Are you going to lose your life while not in the course of living it?
Makes no sense.
But of course, what he means to imply is that racist cops are prowling the streets executing black people en masse.
That's what he means to say there.
That's what he's getting at.
And again, we go back to when did Joe Biden develop these paranoid delusions?
He never mentioned it before.
Now it's a thing.
Because, of course, these claims about racist, you know, black people have to live in fear because racist white people are out hunting and killing them, you know, completely disconnected from reality.
There is no evidence of any kind, period, to support it.
Joe Biden knows that, though.
But, you know, if he has to inflame racial tensions and, you know, all of that in order to grasp onto power so he can live the last few years of his barely sentient life at this point, you know, having the power that he's thirsted for his whole life, then he's fine.
He'll do that.
He'll help just destroy the country on his way out the door.
Great guy, great guy that Joe Biden.
What a decent, decent man that Joe Biden is.
Such a decent man.
Number two, speaking of decent men, Michael Reinold, the man who murdered the Trump supporter in Portland, was shot dead by law enforcement yesterday while they tried to arrest him.
U.S.
Marshals say that he pulled a gun while they were trying to apprehend him and he was killed.
And now I say this in all sincerity, you know, I really am curious to see if Reinoehl is the first white man killed by law enforcement that BLM decides to get outraged about.
I really don't know.
I have no idea.
It's kind of 50-50.
Not that there's any reason to be outraged by it, but that hasn't generally stopped BLM in the past.
So I'm just curious if they'll break their policy of ignoring white death entirely for Reinoehl.
I guess we'll see.
All right, now to the Daily Wire has the report.
As I pull it up, here it is.
The California State Senate passed a controversial reform to its sex offender registry Monday that would allow a young adult who has gay sex with a minor to escape registering, in some cases for the sex offender registry, based on a judge's discretion.
SB 145 finally passed the 40-member State Senate by a vote of 23 to 10 after being introduced by California State Senator Scott Weiner.
Weiner argued that the current law discriminates against LGBT youth because, as the Chronicle explained, under current law, a judge can decide whether to place a man who has vaginal intercourse with an underage teenage girl on the sex offender registry based on the facts of the case.
But if anal or oral sex or vaginal penetration with anything other than a penis is involved, the adult must register as a sex offender.
Under SB 145, if a young adult has gay sex with a minor 14 or older, who is less than 10 years younger, A judge will have the discretion whether to place the individual on the sex offender registry.
Okay, and as you heard there, the justification being given for this is that in some cases when a heterosexual man vaginally rapes a child, they are not put on the sex offender registry, and so as Wiener is arguing here, the same should go for gay men.
I really don't think I need to spend time explaining the problem with this logic, but I spend most of my show explaining logic that probably doesn't need to be explained, so we'll do it here too.
The obvious problem here is if you're going to pass a bill, To address this disparity?
The bill should be one that ensures that men who vaginally rape children go to jail and are treated more harshly than they are.
That's the problem.
Okay?
That's what we need to address.
If in California, there could be cases where a 24, because this is the implications.
You could have a 24 year old man raping a 14 year old child
and they might not go on the sex offender registry for that.
That's the way the law is set up.
At least if it's vaginal rape, you know, man-woman vaginal rape.
Or man-child, I should say.
Okay, well, yes, I agree.
Let's pass a law about that.
But let's pass a law that does away with that insanity and ensures that a man who does that goes to prison.
How about, I don't know, forever?
You know, at a minimum, I can think of harsher penalties also that we could consider.
But no, what the Democrats are saying is, no, let's make it even.
What they're saying is, if this kind of child rape is legal, then this kind of child rape over here should also be legal.
What kind of degenerate lunacy is that?
And this guy has, you know, he's going around in the media complaining and making a martyr of himself because of all the death threats he's getting.
Of course, death threats are bad.
Uh, supports death threats, but if people are angry at him, it's because he's trying to decriminalize certain forms of child rape.
And the argument he's making in favor of it is that, well, that kind is legal.
Disgusting, ridiculous, repulsive, but that's the Democrat party for you.
That's the Democrat party.
Um, not just in California, but everywhere.
All right, let's move on.
Uh, number four.
I actually forgot number four.
I have number four written down here for my five headlines and I never wrote in number four.
This is a professional operation.
So we're going to skip right over number four.
Uh, maybe we could talk, maybe number four was going to be, maybe number four was going to be the, the, uh, Atlantic story about Donald Trump.
You've probably heard by now or they're claiming unnamed sources claiming that Donald Trump is, was insulting, you know, uh, wounded veterans and calling them losers.
He didn't want to visit a grave of a veteran cemetery because he said they're losers because they died.
All unnamed sources, no one on the record.
And it's, you know, if something like that actually happened and he actually said that, and you're in the administration or you heard it, then you go on the record and tell your story.
The unnamed sources thing, no.
And by the way, at least five named sources have come out and denied this and said, so you've got all the named sources are saying it didn't happen.
Only the unnamed sources are saying it did.
So you decide how to interpret that, but I'll tell you how to interpret it.
It's BS.
Okay.
Number five, Prince Harry and Meghan have signed apparently a mega Netflix deal.
Uh, they're going to be producing a whole bunch of documentaries and other shows.
Most of the content about themselves, presumably, um, I'm just wondering, who would want to watch this?
I don't know.
Aren't these two of the most boring people on earth?
And I say this, I'm sincerely perplexed here.
Why would anyone care what they're doing with their lives?
Who wants to hear from these two?
Could there be anything less interesting than the story of two rich people who don't have jobs?
I mean, nothing against them.
If I could have a life like that, I'd take it.
But I'm not going to pretend that my life is interesting.
What would a reality show of these two consist of?
What would be the conflict that drives the narrative?
They have a disagreement about what kind of caviar to serve at their two-year-old's birthday party?
I don't know.
Anyway, the LA Times has a statement from the couple.
This is what the statement says.
Our lives, both independent of each other and as a couple, have allowed us to understand the power of the human spirit, of courage, resilience, and the need for connection.
Through our work with diverse communities and their environments, to shining a light on people and causes around the world, our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope.
Oh my gosh.
Did they just call themselves courageous and resilient?
Did they just say the lesson that they've taken from their life experiences is the value of courage?
They did, didn't they?
And it goes on.
Harry and Meghan, whose son Archie is 15 months old, added that making inspirational family programming is important to them, as is, quote, powerful storytelling through a truthful and relatable lens.
They said that Netflix's Reach will help them, quote, share impactful content that unlocks action.
They're also committed to amplifying diverse voices in front of and behind the camera, as well as diverse hiring practices for roles they're filling at their production company.
I'm gonna be sick.
I would honestly rather be skinned alive and thrown into a fire filled with snakes.
Burning snakes.
Burning snakes with hepatitis.
I would rather that than spend five seconds watching anything these two produce.
But, congrats to them on their Netflix deal.
I'm sure it'll be great.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation, let's consider the story of a woman named Jessica Krug.
It's a story that throws a great many leftist narratives into chaos all at once.
And I, for one, am enjoying the spectacle.
So, Jessica Krug is a professor of African and Latin American studies.
She's an author and teacher and activist.
She's written and spoken over the years about her black identity.
She wrote a book called Fugitive Modernities, which I'm pleased to inform you is available in hardcover on Amazon for only $84.
In her bio, apparently, she describes herself as an unrepentant and unreformed child of the hood.
The only problem is that the hood was a suburb in Missouri, it turns out, and when she called herself African and black all those years, what she really meant to say is that she's white and Jewish.
Krug published a lengthy confession on Medium yesterday titled, The Truth and the Anti-Black Violence of My Lies.
And here's what she says.
To an escalating degree over my adult life, I have eschewed my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas under various assumed identities within blackness that I had no right to claim.
First North African blackness, then US-rooted blackness, then Caribbean-rooted Bronx blackness.
So she really covered the gamut here.
I have not only claimed these identities as my own when I had absolutely no right to do so, When doing so is the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures, but I have formed intimate relationships with loving, compassionate people who have trusted and cared for me when I have deserved neither trust nor caring.
People have fought together with me and have fought for me, and my continued appropriation of a Black Caribbean identity Is not only in the starkest terms wrong, unethical, immoral, anti-black, colonial, but it means that every step I've taken has gaslighted those whom I love.
Okay, so you see how she tries subtly to get the rest of white people to share the blame with her?
She says that what she's done is the epitome of the myriad ways in which non-black people use black identities.
First of all, speak for yourself there, Jessica.
Don't try to drag the rest of us into this.
It reminds me of the men who were caught up in the Me Too net, you know, the actual guilty ones anyway, all three or four of them, and how they would...
Always try to spread the blame around, you know, and say things like, well, I'm realizing now that there's a problem with how men treat women.
No, chief, there's a problem with how you treat them.
Inviting a woman up for a meeting in your hotel room and coming to the door naked except for an open bathrobe, that's a you problem.
That's a you move, okay?
Most of us have never done that or even considered doing it, so don't try to implicate the rest of us.
And it's the same thing here with Cruz.
A lot of her statement, she talks a lot about what white people do and whiteness this and whiteness that.
No, this is about you.
This is what you did.
Later in her confession, Krug says, no white person, no non-black person has the right to claim proximity to or belonging in a black community by virtue of abuse, trauma, non-acceptance, and non-belonging in a white community.
The abuse within and alienation from my birth family and society are no one's burden but my own, and mine alone to address.
Black people and black communities have no obligation to harbor the refuse of non-black society.
I have done this.
I know it is wrong, and I have done this anyway.
Yeah, you read this and you do feel sorry for her while reading it because this is a woman driven completely mad by left-wing identity politics.
Really, she's been driven into lunacy by it.
Obviously, though she tries to spread the blame around unfairly, it is true that she's not the first white person to pretend to be black.
Rachel Dolezal is the obvious other example, Sean King, and then related examples too, like Elizabeth Warren pretending to be Native American.
Then also, according to the left anyway, There's a far more wide-ranging problem.
There's the ever-present threat of cultural appropriation, right?
And this threat is why centuries must stand around the gates of blackness to prevent the enemy called whiteness from infiltrating under the cover of night and stealing, you know, a hairstyle or whatever.
If a woman is caught, if a white woman is caught in dreadlocks, the trumpet is sounded.
She's stolen the hairstyle!
It's been stolen!
As if when a white person steals a hairstyle, it means that a non-white person is going to wake up in the morning bald, wondering who took their hairstyle.
Which doesn't make sense, but regardless, cultural appropriation, we're told, is a serious problem.
And that raises a question.
If all of the privilege in America belongs to white people, then why would they reject that identity?
If white people are the oppressors, then why are so many of them trying to assume the identity of the oppressed?
Can you think of any historical precedent for this?
Can you think of any example in history of a member of an oppressed group, of an oppressor group pretending for years to be in the oppressed group?
Can you think of an example where the oppressed group is also at the same time so admired and sought after that one of their biggest problems is how the oppressors want so badly to adopt their styles and customs?
This is not at all what you would expect in a systemically racist country where whites are the beneficiaries of inherent privilege.
It's almost like America is not systemically racist, and white privilege is a left-wing fable that falls apart upon further inspection.
Almost.
Now, there's another problem for the left here, and that is the matter of self-identity.
Another obvious question comes to mind.
Why can't Krug or Dolezal or anyone else identify as black?
Why isn't their self-identity legitimate?
If they say they feel like they're black and they identify most with that community, who's to say they're wrong?
I mean, I can say they're wrong.
I can.
But I can say it because I happen to believe that our fundamental identity is not something that can be changed on a whim.
It's not subjective.
Our perception of our identity is subjective, but the identity itself, our demographical makeup, those basic facts about us are simply facts, no matter how we feel about them.
But that's not the position the left takes.
They say that, for example, a man might be born a man with a male body, male DNA, male bone structure, male everything else.
And yet, if he finds within himself some sort of vague, undefinable feeling of woman-ness, then he's a woman.
So, what if he finds a vague, undefinable feeling of blackness?
Why is he not, then, a black?
Why is he not, then, black?
Short, you could say, well, How would he know that he feels as black people feel?
To say he knows it because he feels it is begging the question.
It's circular reasoning.
He's not black and so his feeling of being black must be wrong.
And you're right.
But then I point you back to the man-woman situation.
Same exact thing can be said.
Or you could answer that our race is not a changeable part of us.
We're born with it.
Again, true.
But again, I point you back to the man-woman dichotomy.
You might say that it's offensive for a white man to call himself black, that he's making a caricature of that identity, that he's claiming something that doesn't belong to him.
Again, yes, true, definitely.
But again, man-woman, same thing.
See, there just is no valid argument, none at all, for denying a white person's right to be black, But not a man's right to be a woman.
In fact, between sex and race, if any one of those things can be called fluid or on a spectrum, it would have to be race.
Certainly, race can make a much more plausible claim to fluidity than sex.
You can, in fact, mix races.
A white man and a black woman make a mixed-race child.
A man and woman, though, don't make a mixed-gender child.
So, this is yet another leftist narrative blown to smithereens by Jessica Krug.
Multiple narratives.
And it is why she is not cancelled, actually.
Far from it.
I appreciate her service in exposing these narratives.
It's the narratives which are all now, of course, cancelled.
I didn't even do it.
Jessica Krug did it.
She's the one who cancelled it.
I am just noticing it and passing along the message to everybody else.
That's going to do it for today.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great weekend, a great long weekend.
And I'll talk to you next week.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
