Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a massive spike in homicides all across the country isn’t getting the media attention it deserves. We’ll look at the numbers and talk about why this might be happening. Also Five Headlines including Joe Biden continuing his spree of Executive Orders. His latest order seeks to end racism. Will it work? And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll track the evolution in masking guidance. From “don’t wear a mask” to “wear three masks.” We’ve come a long way.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a massive spike in homicides all across the country isn't getting the media attention it deserves.
We'll look at the numbers and talk about why this might be happening.
Also, five headlines, including Joe Biden continuing his spree of executive orders.
His latest order seeks to end racism.
Will it work?
And in our daily cancellation, we'll track the evolution in masking guidance from don't wear a mask to wear three masks.
We've come a long way.
All of that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Perhaps you've heard that there's an epidemic sweeping through our country,
affecting especially the most populated areas.
Thousands have died as a result in the last year.
The worst epidemic of its kind in American history.
And I'm referring, of course, to the homicide epidemic.
You've heard plenty about the other epidemic, but probably not nearly as much, or maybe at all, about this one.
Yet it seems to me to be a rather, I don't know, a rather big deal.
If more Americans are killing each other than ever before, that would seem like the kind of thing we should pay attention to and talk about.
Try to diagnose.
Indeed it would see, you know, I would say that this epidemic is in some ways more troubling than a viral epidemic because the, you might say, disease causing it infects us at a much deeper level.
It's not found in the respiratory tract, but in our nature, in our soul.
This makes it all the more newsworthy, I would think.
Still, not a whole lot of attention has been paid to this report in the Wall Street Journal from Heather MacDonald.
Headline is, Taking Stock of a Most Violent Year.
MacDonald writes, in part, The year 2020 likely saw the largest percentage increase in homicides in American history.
Murder was up nearly 37% in a sample of 57 large and medium-sized cities.
Based on preliminary estimates, at least 2,000 more Americans, most of them black, were killed in 2020 than in 2019.
That's what the article says.
Now, this is an op-ed, and McDonnell gives her opinion on what's causing this, which we'll talk about in a moment.
But the information, the stats, as they're reported, are accurate.
And there have been articles in other mainstream outlets reporting on the rise.
They really have no choice but to at least acknowledge it.
But the problem has not gotten anything like the attention it deserves.
Here's a little bit more information on the Christian Science Monitor.
This is from an article back in December.
They say, to be sure, overall crime has dropped dramatically in the U.S.
since the late 1990s, but the 2020 homicide rate now exceeds the rates of the late 80s and 90s before the big drops, says Richard Rosenfeld, lead author of Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S.
Cities, a new report.
He says, quote, this round of crime increases unprecedented.
This year, 51 cities of various sizes across the U.S.
saw an average 35% jump in murder from 2019 to 2020, a historically awful development, he says.
A different study looking at 21 U.S.
cities found 610 more murders in those jurisdictions this year over last year.
In those cities, gun assaults also increased by 10% over 2019.
Now, this, as I say, is an extremely big deal.
Why is it happening?
Well, the media seems to want to blame the pandemic, because that's, I guess, the safest place to point the finger.
And they're probably right, at least to an extent.
This is something, in fact, that critics of the lockdown policies warned about early on.
If you attempt to shut down society all at once, take away millions of people's jobs, take millions of kids out of school, and try to bring our whole civilization to a halt, there's going to be enormous prices to pay.
Some of us said that the result of this policy, this panic really, would be unrest, rioting, chaos, violence, murder, poverty, unemployment, on a scale unknown to modern America.
And then what happened?
Well, exactly that.
We had unrest, rioting, chaos, violence, murder, poverty, unemployment, all at record levels.
This result is horrifying, though not at all shocking to anyone who understands human nature.
You simply cannot tell 330 million people to stay in their homes for a year.
Maybe in some sort of ideal fantasy world, pandemics can be dealt with that way.
People are getting sick, you just say, oh, everyone just stay home until it stops.
Maybe, in an ideal world, a plan like that is something you'd think about.
But we don't live in that world.
We live in the actual world.
And when you're making policies in the actual world, you have to account for things like human nature.
This is the problem with almost every policy advocated by people on the left.
They don't understand human nature, or acknowledge it, or account for it.
They imagine how they think a policy should work, and then they implement it with little regard for how it will work in reality.
All of that to say, the critics of the lockdowns We're 100% correct in every way across the board.
I don't think we've ever seen dire predictions pan out so perfectly, so quickly, or so terribly.
Now, does this mean that the critics of the lockdowns are given credit for being right?
Are those who called us anti-science, accusing us of trying to kill their grandmothers, are they lining up to apologize and say, hey, you know, you guys were right about everything?
Well, of course not.
Somehow, we're still anti-science, even as our point is proven correct.
Speaking of proving points, there's more lying behind this homicide epidemic than the catastrophic policies ostensibly put in place to fight a viral epidemic.
We've also seen this year, and in recent years leading up to it, a surge of anti-police sentiments and policies, making it harder, if not impossible in some cases, for cops to do their jobs.
Vox, in their article on the homicide spike, they actually acknowledge this as a potential cause.
Though, of course, they try to put the blame back on the police.
They blame the police for being the ones to pull back.
But it's good that they acknowledge it at least.
Here's what they say.
In response to the 2014 and 2015 waves of Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality, officers in some cities pulled back, either out of fear that any act of aggressive policing would get them in trouble, or in a counter-protest against BLM.
While protesters have challenged the crime-fighting effectiveness of police, there is a sizable body of evidence that more and certain kinds of policing do lead to less crime.
Imagine that.
Given that, some experts said that de-policing in response to protests could have led to more violence, what some in years past called the Ferguson effect, after the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting Michael Brown, also seen in Baltimore after the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray.
Now, it's good at least that they admit that there's a connection, right, between de-policing and increased crime.
Which means defund the police if we do that on a nationwide scale.
Eventually, we're going to be looking back on 2020 wistfully as a peaceful time, a near utopic time, when really we had the homicide problem under control by comparison.
But you can't blame the police for being the ones to pull back because, number one, oftentimes these are policies forcing them.
They're being forced to by the higher ups, by the people who are running, who are always Democrats, by the way, who are running these cities.
And on top of that, if you're a police officer and you know that if your life is in jeopardy and you have to make a choice to save your life, you could go to jail for the rest of your life for doing it.
Yeah, I think that is going, very reasonably, it's going to make you pull back a little bit.
Cops are in a position now where, you know, they're, of course, it's all on a racial basis.
If they're dealing with a white suspect, then this pressure isn't there because the media doesn't care when white suspects die, even if they die unjustly.
But if you're dealing with a black suspect, especially if you're a white cop, although even if you're not really, and you get to a point where you feel like he's trying to possibly kill you, It's an ultimate lose-lose situation.
No matter what you do in response, you lose.
At that point, if you're in a situation like the cops were in Atlanta with Rayshard Brooks, for example, stole the Taser, was using it against them, you're in a position now, you lose.
Whatever you do, you lose.
You don't fight back, you could be killed.
You do fight back, you go to jail.
Yeah, that's gonna have an effect.
What this all adds up to is a perfect storm, right?
Lock everyone down.
Take away jobs.
Take away school.
Take away police.
Villainize the police.
While you're at it, romanticize rioting.
Excuse violent crime as nothing but hungry people trying to get bread, in AOC's words.
And with all that together, you're going to get exactly what we got.
Some of us saw it coming and said so.
Many others saw it coming and did not say so because they were afraid, and still many more were too deluded by their ideology to see anything at all.
So looking back on this, and looking forward to what could be ahead, those of us in the first group who saw it coming and said so, we take no pleasure in saying, we told you so.
But we did.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Quick little fitness tip for you.
A little bit of fitness inspiration.
I like to inspire you.
I don't know if you knew this on the show.
I consider myself a motivational, inspirational speaker in many ways.
So yesterday I was coming home from the gym.
Stopped at the gym on the way home from work.
And I've been going to the gym pretty regularly, feeling good about that.
But the problem is that my diet isn't great.
I eat crap all the time.
Just a lot of junk food.
That's the truth.
And they say you can't outrun a bad diet.
You know, you can't work out enough to compensate for the bad diet.
You're always going to be like a net, it's always going to be a net negative in the end.
So on my way home, I was thinking about this and realizing if I only had a good diet, I'd be doing well.
If it was just for the diet part.
And I resolved in that moment, I had this like moment in the car driving home and I resolved.
I said, I'm going to start eating healthy.
From this moment on, it's gonna happen.
Not eating junk food, I'm not gonna, I'm gonna, whatever, I'm gonna cut back on carbs, all that stuff.
And I was resolved to do it.
I felt, I just was, I felt so motivated.
And then I walked in my home, and the first thing my wife said to me was, hey, we made brownies.
And so I ate half the pan.
Immediately.
And that's when I realized I had a second epiphany, And I realized as I was eating my third brownie, I realized, you know, you can't outrun a bad diet.
That's true.
But you can go for the tie.
And, uh, you know, that's bad.
I think that's good enough, right?
Just kind of maintaining where you're at.
That's what I'm going for.
All right.
Number one, Joe Biden, um, continued signing executive orders yesterday.
He's signed, I think, what is it?
I think he's up to 5,000 executive orders so far.
Just he wakes up in the morning and whatever thought he happens to think that day, he'll convert it into an executive order.
I think he'll be signing an executive order today to declare that chipmunks are the cutest forest animals.
Anything at all.
Any thought he happens to think, let's make it into an executive order.
But remember, of course, Trump was the dictator, the fascist.
Biden will beat Trump's executive order total in like a few months.
That's the rate he's on now.
And so on that end, yesterday he signed a racial equity executive order, and of course he tied it to George Floyd.
Here he is explaining why he's signing the order.
What many Americans didn't see or had simply refused to see couldn't be ignored any longer.
Those eight minutes and 46 seconds that took George Floyd's life opened the eyes of millions of Americans and millions of people around all over the world.
It was the knee on the neck of justice, and it wouldn't be forgotten.
It stirred the conscious and tens of millions of Americans.
And in my view, it marked a turning point in this country's attitude toward racial justice.
Yeah, eye-opening moment.
I thought it was pretty eye-opening when we got the toxicology report back and we were told that he had lethal levels of fentanyl in his system.
I thought that was pretty eye-opening too.
That to me was pretty enlightening as well.
Now, Joe Biden also, we talked last week about the 1776 Commission that President Trump formed.
And they released their report, which we went through a little bit of it.
Look, in the weeks ahead, I'll be reaffirming the federal government's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility, building on the work we started in the Obama-Biden administration.
Part of this racial equity plan is to do away with the 1776 Commission.
Here he is explaining that.
Look, in the weeks ahead, I'll be reaffirming the federal government's commitment
to diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility, building on the work we started
in the Obama-Biden administration.
That's why I'm rescinding the previous administration's harmful ban
on diversity and sensitivity training and abolish the offensive counterfactual 1776 Commission.
you Unity and healing must begin with understanding and truth, not ignorance and lies.
Today, I'm also issuing an executive order that will ultimately end the Justice Department's use of private prisons, an industry that houses pretiled detainees and federal prisoners.
The executive order directs the Attorney General to decline to renew contracts with privately operated criminal facilities, a step we started to take at the end of the Obama administration and was reversed under the previous administration.
Yeah, so he talks about their abolishing the 1776 Commission, you know, and he also says it's counterfactual, is the 1776.
What part of it is counterfactual?
The report lays out basic facts of American history, and as soon as it was released, we were told by the media and the left that, oh, it's an assault on truth, and this is not history at all.
What part of it isn't history?
You know, they never explained that, did they?
They never told us exactly what part of it is false.
Of course, the only part that they really, the primary part that they disagree with is just the point that the 1776 Commission made, which is that slavery, an awful, evil thing, nobody, literally nobody, at least nobody in the West denies it.
Some parts of the world where they still have slavery, maybe they do deny it, but certainly in the West, nobody denies that.
But it's also not a crime or a sin unique to Western society.
The white man didn't invent slavery.
That does matter.
That matters because when we're going back and we're looking at the heroes of our history, we have to understand them within context.
And if there's a certain evil thing that someone in history took part in, or at least did not object to, and then you take a step back and you take a wider view of it, and you see that pretty much everyone in history up until that point also was not objecting to it, Then, yeah, that matters not... I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
That matters not in judging the objective morality of the act itself.
Now, we know that slavery is a horrible evil.
Always has been, always will be.
And you can make statements like that when you believe in objective morality.
The irony here is that the left, they're moral relativists.
So they have even less standing to judge anyone 200 years ago who practiced slavery or believed in it.
Because according to them, morality is relative.
And 200 years ago, 250 years ago, 300 years ago, all throughout history, the relative morality of that time was that slavery was okay.
And if you're a moral relativist, you have no basis upon which to criticize that.
Now, if you believe in objective morality, as I do, then I can say, 250 years ago, if you practiced slavery or even failed to protest against it, then that is an evil act.
But, when judging the moral culpability of any individual who engaged in it, that's when you have to take into account context.
The context of the time.
And that's the difference.
But again, as a moral relativist, that is just the incredible irony here.
It's the moral relativists who are the ones going back through history And holding, you know, our historical figures to the standards of today.
I think that's stupid to do on any philosophical grounds.
You especially can't do it as a relativist.
Makes no sense.
All right, one other clip I wanted to play, because Biden has one other thing to say here that I thought was interesting, but not for the reason he intended.
Let's take a listen.
We've never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation, to state the obvious.
That all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives.
And it's time to act now, not only because it's the right thing to do, but because if we do, we'll all be better off for it.
For too long, we've allowed a narrow, cramped view of the promise of this nation to fester.
You know, we've bought the view that America is a zero-sum game in many cases.
If you succeed, I fail.
If you get ahead, I fall behind.
If you get the job, I lose mine.
Maybe worst of all, if I hold you down, I lift myself up.
Yeah, I actually agree with him there.
I agree with what he just said.
But I don't think he understands what he's saying.
And I think that's a problem that's only going to get worse as time goes on.
But he's saying, we've bought this incorrect view that America is a zero-sum game, and if I succeed, it means you fail.
You're right.
That is an incorrect view.
It is a view that a lot of people have bought into.
It is wrong.
We do need to push back against it.
But that's the view that is being propagated by your side, dude.
That's you.
That's you and your side.
That's what you're saying.
We here, over here, as conservatives, we have been the ones saying what you just said.
That's not the way it works.
That's why you don't have to look with resentment on someone who's wealthy and successful.
Just because someone's wealthy and successful, it doesn't mean they're taking something away from you.
You don't have to take from someone in order for other people to be successful.
If you want to help the less successful be more successful, it doesn't mean you have to take away from the ones who are successful.
Because it's not a zero-sum game.
That is an incorrect view.
But again, Biden, it's your view.
Not ours.
All right, number two, I wanted to read this to you just as a really perfect example of fake news.
I saw someone shared this.
It's from a recent article in Washington Post, actually from a couple of weeks ago, but I saw this being shared.
So it's an article in Washington Post about Biden's transgender policies, right?
And listen, this is one paragraph in the article.
Listen to the framing of this paragraph.
Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in the relentless culture war that has come to dominate American politics, pitting conservative Christians who want their religious views to be accommodated against liberal and secular Americans who think some of those views trample on minority groups' rights.
You see that?
This is fake news.
This is how fake news works.
It is not usually a matter of inventing a story out of whole cloth.
Sometimes fake news does that too.
Most of the time though, and it's the most insidious and damaging form, it's this.
It is in taking something and framing it in a certain way.
And so the framing here, what do they say?
Conservative Christians who want their religious views to be accommodated.
So now, look at what they've done here.
It's almost brilliant.
They've taken an issue of a small minority of biological men who want access to female locker rooms.
But now, if you object to that, And you simply want things to continue as they always have been?
Forever?
Which is that you've got men and women locker rooms and bathrooms and we just stick with that?
Then now, you are the one asking to be accommodated.
It's not the handful, the smattering of biological men who want to go into the women's bathroom.
They're not the ones asking to be accommodated, no.
You're asking to be accommodated when you say, no, I don't want that.
So, by objecting to the accommodations That this minority is asking for, you, in effect now, are the one asking for an accommodation.
Brilliant.
Devious.
But brilliant because, maybe not so brilliant, but people fall for it anyway.
I don't know if the framing is brilliant, or people are just stupid, or if it's one or the other, but it works.
Number three from The Blaze, a woman who criticized white privilege on social media was charged with the child abuse murder of her three-year-old foster child, who was white.
The disturbing story unfolded in Simpsonville, South Carolina.
Police alleged that Arielle Robinson, 29, and her husband Jerry Robinson, 34, inflicted a series of blunt force injuries on their adopted child, Victoria Rose Smith.
The parents called 911 on January 15th to report that the child was unresponsive.
When medical professionals arrived, they immediately suspected child abuse, according to the heavily redacted police report.
And I read the police report, by the way.
It's heavily redacted as an understatement.
Almost every single word is blocked out, except for a few.
So there's a whole lot in that police report that they don't want the public to see.
Why is that?
Well, we don't know.
That's why it's redacted.
But it does raise, certainly, a lot of questions.
Ariel Robinson, she was also on a Food Network show called Worst Cooks in America.
And she won that show, apparently.
But the most relevant fact about her, about her background anyway, possibly, is that she would frequently post on social media decrying things like white privilege.
So she posted very recently, this was on January 6th.
The murder happened on January 11th, I believe, so less than a week.
Before, she says, in my house, my black children get treated the same as my white children, and my white children get treated the same as my black children.
It's a shame that when they go out into the real world, that won't be the case.
Adding hashtags for white privilege and Black Lives Matter.
So this is a black woman who complained about white privilege and advocated for Black Lives Matter.
Shortly before, allegedly, beating her white adoptive daughter to death.
It goes without saying now at this point, but I'm going to say it anyway, because all I do is point out the obvious anymore, but someone has to do it.
Reverse the races on this story, and this is headline news everywhere.
I mean, can you imagine a case where a white adoptive mother of a black child, let's say, criticized BLM and then shortly after that beat her black child to death?
If that were to happen, that would be news everywhere.
Headline news everywhere.
And we'd be linking it to systemic racism and all this kind of stuff.
This happens and not a lot of attention at all.
The story only gets worse.
Because you start asking a question, you know, how did this woman manage to adopt a child?
Like, how could they not?
I know you can't read someone's mind, and there's only so much you can do when someone's coming in to adopt a child.
There's only so much you can do to screen out the psychopaths, but could they really not tell?
If she is indeed guilty of doing this, the kind of woman who would beat a child to death, you can't tell that?
There were no red flags?
It's harder to believe that there are no red flags when you consider... We'll play this video for you.
This was, I think, first found by TMZ, and they posted it online.
This is from a couple years ago, I believe.
Here is Ariel Robinson performing a quote-unquote stand-up act where she jokes about abusing her children and locking them in a cage.
Listen.
So we're trying to adopt a baby girl, and the social worker, you know, they have to come over and, you know, see that you're not too crazy to adopt.
And so, the whole way she's coming over, I'm thinking, I'm telling my husband, I'm saying, you know what, we should have locked the other two up in cages because if she meet them two, ain't no way they gonna give us another.
She gets there, it's too late.
They upstairs, hollering, screaming, where the moms at?
Hold on a minute.
Okay, mm-hmm.
Yep, y'all don't like y'all kids either.
So they upstairs hollering and screaming and going on.
You know, you get to that mommy level and you like, you done had it.
So I can get in the room and it's in my face.
So I turn around, yell upstairs, SHUT UP I'M COMING THERE AND PUNCH YOU IN YOUR THROAT!
Turn back around, and she's looking at me, 'cause that's what y'all looking at.
(laughing)
It's a game, you know.
I put the damn necklace on you.
We got approved.
(laughing)
We gonna have her by December, yeah.
Hey, listen to those cackling hyenas in the audience.
Isn't that hilarious?
She's talking about abusing her children.
And according to that story, I don't know, it might have been a little hard to hear what you're saying because of the audio quality there, but according to the story that she tells in this quote-unquote comedy act, she says that she threatened to punch her children in the throat, screamed it at them, in front of an official from the adoption agency.
Now, did she make this story up?
We don't know.
But either way, here she is in public, joking about abusing her children.
So, she's the kind of woman who publicly jokes about abusing her children, and then allegedly actually beat her child to death shortly after adopting the girl.
She was adopted a year or two earlier.
And there were no red flags?
At all?
You couldn't see that anything was amiss?
Really?
There are a lot of questions here.
There are a lot of questions we should be asking.
Was this a racially motivated hate crime against her own adopted daughter?
That's a fair question.
And again, if you reverse the races, it'll be a question everyone would ask.
And so I'm going to ask that question.
We deserve to know.
Why did they redact the police report so heavily?
Was there an indication of that?
I don't know.
And how is it that a woman, and you take the race out of it, how is it that a woman like that was able to adopt a child?
I mean, serious accountability, but the problem is there needs to be accountability.
There probably won't be because the media is not going to touch the story with a 10-foot pole.
At least they're not going to touch the racial aspects of it, certainly.
And, you know, that story she told, did that actually happen where there was some sort of official there and witnessed that?
Because if it did, then that official who witnessed it should go to jail too.
And as far as this woman, if she's guilty, this is why, I'm at a point now where you couldn't possibly, even though in the past I've been against the death penalty, I'm at a point now, because of things like this, you couldn't possibly convince me to go back to those days.
This is what we need the death penalty for, are people like this.
You beat a child to death, we don't need you on Earth.
We don't need you on Earth.
We need you gone from the Earth as quickly as possible.
All right, number five.
Actually, I think it's number four, but I'm skipping ahead, I guess.
From The Hill, it says, it may be a man's world in Hollywood, but Keira Knightley will no longer perform sex scenes under a male director.
So she's getting a lot of credit.
She's getting praised for this.
While the actor has done nude and sex scenes in the past, she now has a no nudity clause in her contract that only somewhat has to do with how her body has changed after having two children.
She says, it's partly vanity, but also the male gaze.
So she says she doesn't want, uh, she's, she's not interested in the male gaze anymore.
And so she said, she's not going to do nude scenes with a male director.
She'll still do them.
So she's getting, she's getting credit for this as a great feminist statement.
She'll still do them.
It's just that she won't do it with a male director because she's worried about the male gaze.
You do have to ask, uh, what about the male gaze of the people in the audience?
Uh, what about crew members?
Producers?
Just more absolutely hollow, Me Too-esque virtue signaling from feminists in Hollywood.
What else is new?
You know, there are few feelings more uncomfortable than when you're stuck in a car and you're starting to feel carsick.
I had this experience, in fact, just this past week.
I was coming home from the airport.
I was in the Uber and I just started that wave, because I get really bad carsickness, that wave of nausea started to Started to feel it and then it gets really intense and you don't want to tell the Uber driver to pull over so you can vomit on the side of the highway.
Nor do you want to vomit inside the car either because that's generally frowned upon so you just suffer through it.
And the thing is I didn't have with me my mistake at the time my relief band.
Usually I have it with me and that's why you need to make sure you get relief band and always have it with you if you're going to be in a car or traveling If you're prone to nausea for any other reason, Reliefband is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband that's been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraine, hangover, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more.
The product is 100% drug-free, non-drowsy, provides all-natural relief with zero side effects for as long as needed.
They do sell pills you can get that are supposed to deal with nausea from motion sickness, but those are going to make you drowsy, and a lot of times you can't afford to take something that's going to put you to sleep in the middle of the day.
Reliefband is the only over-the-counter wearable device that's been used in hospitals and oncology clinics to treat nausea and vomiting, so you know it works.
They use it in hospitals, you know it's got to work.
This new year, ensure that nausea is never the reason to miss out on life's important moments.
Right now, Relief Band has an exclusive offer just for my listeners.
If you go to reliefband.com and use promo code WALSH, you'll receive 20% off plus free shipping and no questions asked, 30-day money back guarantee.
So head to r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com and use our promo code WALSH for 20% off.
And after you do that, make sure to head right over to TheDailyWire.com.
Head to TheDailyWire.com, become a Daily Wire member, use promo code RHF to get 25% off for there.
That's RHF for 25% off.
And if you do that, you'll get access to all the perks that come with being a Daily Wire member.
But most importantly right now, you can watch our new feature film, our first feature film that we're very excited about, Run Hide Fight.
And we picked Run, Hide, Fight.
You know, you've heard us talking about it, and you know by now it's not a politically correct movie.
It's not a kid's movie.
It's an intense movie.
But it's a movie the Hollywood studios didn't want any part of.
Now they might be regretting that a little bit when they see the incredible reception it's gotten.
You can go to Rotten Tomatoes and see it's got a 93% audience rating with 2,000 reviews.
So trust the people.
Listen to what the people are saying and check out this film.
You can catch it over at dailywire.com or on our mobile app or on our streaming apps at Apple TV and Roku.
If you're not a Daily Wire member yet, use promo code RHF to get 25% off.
That's again RHF for 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Let us for a moment follow the science.
In fact, let's follow the science back all the way back to ancient times, the days of old, the days of yore, March of 2020.
Back then, we were told that we were anti-scientific morons if we wear a mask out in public.
The Surgeon General screamed at us back in, I think it was February.
He said, in all caps, stop buying masks.
and said explicitly that masks are, quote, not effective in preventing the general public from catching the coronavirus.
The beloved Dr. Fauci had a similar message at the time.
This is what he said back in March.
Let's listen.
There's a lot of confusion among people and misinformation surrounding face masks.
Can you discuss that?
The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.
Now, when you see people and look at the films in China and South Korea, whatever, everybody's wearing a mask.
Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.
You're sure of it, because people are listening really closely to this.
Right now people should not be walking, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.
When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet.
But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.
And often, there are unintended consequences.
People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there?
Of course, of course.
But, you know, when one follows the science, one will be taken down a twisty, windy road.
Soon after these public officials told us not to wear masks, they were telling us not only that actually we should wear masks, but that not wearing masks, that is, believing what they said 12 seconds ago, as opposed to what they're saying now, makes us anti-science.
It was anti-science to wear a mask in March.
In May, it was anti-science not to wear a mask.
And now we're rapidly approaching a point where it's anti-science to only wear one mask rather than two.
Here's what Fauci is saying about that today.
A lot of folks are hearing now about double masking, wearing two masks or trying to get one of those N95 medical grade masks.
Do you believe that that's advisable and makes a difference?
You know, it likely does because, I mean, this is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in.
So if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.
And that's the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of an N95.
Huh.
So it was common sense that we shouldn't wear a mask.
Before, now it's common sense to wear two.
And now we're in sort of an arms race.
From no mask to one mask, two masks.
A pattern seems to be emerging, and the real scientific visionaries are trying to stay one step ahead of the game.
That's why a segment on CNBC this week upped the ante even further.
Listen to this.
The experts keep telling us that wearing masks is really about protecting others from ourselves in the event that we are contagious.
But you know, if other people aren't wearing their masks or they're wearing them improperly, we need to protect ourselves.
So experts say you can double up with a tight weave fabric mask for added protection.
Now, Virginia Tech researchers found that doubling up these cloth masks increases the efficacy from 50 to 75 percent.
A three-layer mask could block up to 90 percent of the particles.
Yes, three masks.
So, from don't wear masks to wear three masks in less than a year.
Now, a number of questions may arise in your mind.
You may think, wait a second, medical masks have been around for centuries.
There isn't much we know about masks now today that we didn't know 10 months ago.
Sure, this particular type of coronavirus might be novel, but the basic science behind masking is not novel.
Something isn't right here, you might think.
You might continue by thinking, it almost seems as though the public messaging on masks has little to do with science, and has had little to do with science in the beginning, you might think.
And you might even continue to think, in addition, I mean, whether masks are effective or not, isn't there very good evidence here that our public officials were either lying to us in March or are lying now?
And when you consider that the change in the mask recommendations happened in the span of a month from March to April, not 10 months, doesn't that make it all the more suspicious?
Again, you might think, you don't have to be anti-mask to be disturbed by this.
In fact, if you're pro-mask and you believe what you're being told now, then doesn't that mean that officials like Fauci are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, for telling people not to wear them early on, precisely when there was the best chance for containing the virus?
If Fauci thought that masks were effective and said otherwise, no matter his reason, is that not a major scandal?
And by the pro-mask way of thinking, perhaps one of the most lethal lies ever told by our government?
You might think all of this, if you hate science.
But those of us who are respecters of science, believers of science, lovers of science, in love with science, those of us who love science so much that we're practically romantically involved with it, we know that science means not asking questions.
There is no room for skepticism in science.
I mean, do you hear the word skepticism in science?
I don't.
They don't call it sci-skeptimismus, do they?
It's science.
Science is all about dogmatically accepting the prevailing notions of the day, even if those notions seem to change every 30 minutes.
That is what science is all about.
If you really believe in science, you will just keep putting stuff on your face whenever you're told to do so.
Personally, the equation that I've worked out scientifically is that every mask you wear represents 10% love for your fellow man.
Okay, now it gets very complicated, but follow with me here.
If you wear no mask, you have no love.
One mask means you have only 10% love.
Three masks makes a mere 30%, better than zero, better than 10, not as good as it could be.
That's why I wear 11 masks, because I always give 110%.
And this means that my love is perfect and pure, better than perfect and pure.
I have 10 masks worth of love.
I look with pity on you one and two maskers.
Pathetic.
You will never respect science the way that I do, or care for humanity the way that I do.
I even wear masks around my ears to make sure that no virus enters or escapes through those passageways.
I wear a mask over my eyes so that no one's infected when, you know, my love for science and humanity moves me to tears, as it so often does.
Only problem is that I can't see anything, and I've already been hit by cars three times.
This is a price worth paying.
For science.
For the world.
For you.
And so anyone who does not follow the science and continue putting layers of masks on until they cannot speak or breathe is cancelled.
And we'll end it there on a little bit of a science lesson.
Hope you learned something.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, after the media spent four years warning of incipient dictatorship, President Biden admits that he's kind of acting like a dictator.
