Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we often hear, especially from the Left, that slavery is America’s “original sin.” It is the reason why we are supposed to be overcome with guilt as Americans. But today I want talk about this idea of slavery as original sin and explain why it’s totally wrong. Also our Five Headlines, including Biden’s move to ban menthol cigarettes. The Democrats want to defund the police, while also passing more petty laws for the police to enforce. Speaking of the police, a teacher in a zoom call berates a student for saying that police are heroes. We’ll play that for you. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the truly insane and almost unbelievable story of the Jeopardy contestant who issues a public apology after being accused of racism for holding up three fingers.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, we often hear, especially from the left, that slavery is America's original sin.
It's the reason why we're supposed to be overcome with guilt as Americans and constantly apologizing.
But today I want to talk about this idea of slavery as original sin and explain why it's totally wrong.
Also, our five headlines, including Biden's move to ban menthol cigarettes, the Democrats wanted to fund the police, While also passing more petty laws for the police to enforce.
Maybe a little bit of a conflict there.
Speaking of the police, a teacher in a Zoom call berates a student for saying that police are heroes.
We'll play that for you.
In our Daily Cancellation, we'll discuss the truly insane and almost unbelievable story of the Jeopardy!
contestant who issued a public apology after being accused of racism for holding up three fingers.
We'll talk about that today and a lot more on The Matt Wall Show.
We're very happy to have on the show.
And you know, it's really important because if you're an adult, you have a family especially, it's extremely important to have a will.
This is a moral responsibility to have something that you can leave behind, to have this all sorted out in case anything happens to you so that your family isn't left.
Dealing with the mess.
At Trustedwill.com, setting up an estate plan is simple, convenient, and secure.
For as little as $39, you can nominate guardians for your children, determine who gets your stuff, and plan for future medical care all from the comfort of your home.
Trustedwill documents are designed by estate planning experts and customized for the state you live in.
And with live customer support seven days a week, Trustedwill.com's team Is available to answer any questions that you have while setting up your plan.
Trust & Will is the most trusted name in online estate planning, the category leader on Trustpilot, and they've helped hundreds of thousands of people protect their family assets and legacy.
So you can gain peace of mind at trustandwill.com slash Walsh.
You get 10% off plus free shipping of your customized legal documents.
Don't wait.
Go right now.
Don't put this off anymore.
You can put it off for long enough.
This is really important.
Get 10% off plus free shipping at trustandwill.com slash Walsh.
Trustandwill.com slash Walsh.
During Senator Tim Scott's Republican rebuttal to Joe Biden's speech on Wednesday night, he used a term that comes up quite often in our political discourse these days.
He spoke, albeit in a sort of hopeful, positive, forward-looking context, about America's original sin.
Here's that part again.
I am more than hopeful.
I am confident that our finest hour has yet to come.
Original sin is never the end of the story.
Not in our souls, and not for our nation.
The real story is always redemption.
The original sin that he's referencing is, of course, slavery.
We hear quite a lot about this supposed national original sin, but whereas Tim Scott wants to move on from that sin and live in the present, most of the people who speak of it don't wish to move on.
They want to obsess over it.
They want our society to revolve around it.
They want to keep our gaze directed at it.
They want Americans, white Americans anyway, to feel immense guilt for it, and to constantly beg forgiveness, and to feel only shame when they think of our history as a nation because of it.
The message from politicians, the media, Hollywood, the school system, all other institutions, even the churches now, is that America is a country rooted in oppression, racism, and bigotry, and although those sins can never be expiated, we, white Americans anyway, must keep trying, must keep atoning, must keep groveling on our knees in self-mortification.
A couple of days ago, Representative Ayanna Pressley, who really hates this country perhaps more than anyone else
in Congress, and there's stiff competition for that title,
spoke about the Chauvin verdict, but began with a soliloquy about America's original sin or
sins, and how we still have not overcome those sins even today.
Here's what she said.
Let me just stop for a moment and just be blunt and talk about how we arrived here.
Black lives have not mattered.
They've not mattered since the very inception of this country, the original sin of slavery.
And so for that reason, because black lives have not mattered, our humanity has never been seen.
That is why our black children are adultified.
That is why our skin color is criminalized.
That is why our very existence is criminalized.
Now if you're like me, you heard her say adultified and thought, wait, did she just say adultified?
She did.
And I now know after Googling it that adultification is when children are exposed to things that are too mature for them and are treated by society as if they're older than they really are.
Now this is indeed a real problem in our society.
I don't think we need a word like adultification to describe it, but it is a real thing.
We can start with the fact that many kids as young as eight and nine are accessing hardcore pornography on sites like Pornhub.
But as we know, everything has to be about race these days.
So the people who use the term adultification or adultified, they usually mean it in a racial context and will claim that it's a problem which especially or only affects racial minorities.
Forget about those dumb white kids.
We don't care about them.
This is all a problem among racial minorities only.
And they're probably right that it does affect racial minority children in a somewhat unique way.
Just think of Adam Toledo, 13 years old, out in the streets at 3 a.m., hanging out with a 21-year-old gangbanger, playing with a loaded gun, shooting at cars.
Many such cases in our cities among minority children.
But who's to blame for that?
If children are exposed to things they shouldn't be exposed to and allowed to act in ways they shouldn't act, I would say the blame begins with, oftentimes, the parents, who may not be caring for and looking out for their own children.
Ayanna Pressley and her fellow race hustlers would, however, put the blame on white people somehow.
It's our fault If a black father abandons his family and the mother allows her child to join a gang or go out and hang out with gangs at 3 a.m.
The rest of what you heard there was equally nonsensical and false.
A black person's existence is not criminalized.
Presley is hallucinating and she's not alone.
She's part of the largest group hallucination in history.
The entire American left is experiencing.
But back in reality, Bill, black people are not arrested and charged with the crime of being black.
What you'll find in most every case is that a black person in prison is there because they engaged in some sort of criminal activity.
Same reason every white person, most every white person is in prison.
It's activity that would be just as illegal if a white person had done it.
There is no black person currently in jail on charges of being black.
That's not happening in America.
Presley is telling fairy tales.
She may as well be reading us Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Her version of reality is about as real as that.
But what about this idea of America's original sin?
I think there's a few points to be made about that.
First, no.
Slavery is not America's original sin.
Slavery was a sin, a big one, but it's not America's original sin.
The original sin of every American, just like every other member of every other country, is original sin.
Our original sin is original sin, at least according to the Christian doctrine.
If you're not a Christian and don't subscribe to any traditional religion at all, then the concept of original sin just makes no sense.
The concept of sin generally makes no sense in that case.
In fact, if you're a moral relativist, as most leftists are, then morality is determined by culture and environment and by the subjective experience of each individual.
And that all means that slavery was not actually a sin to the cultures that didn't consider it a sin.
Slavery is a sin now because we see it that way, but it wasn't a sin to the people who did not see it that way.
That's the implication of moral relativism.
That's the funny thing about moral relativists.
They're the primary ones going back and condemning people in history, but they have no basis upon which to do it by their own philosophy.
Most of the evil things done in history weren't really evil by their own way of looking at things, because the people doing it didn't see it that way.
So to review, if you are a Christian, Then you know that our original sin is original sin, as described in the Bible.
It predates American slavery.
Indeed, slavery is a result of original sin, a product of our fallen nature as humans.
It's not itself the original sin.
But if you're not a Christian and don't really subscribe to any monotheistic religion at all, then the whole concept of original sin has no basis in meaning.
Whichever way you go, nobody should be calling slavery the original sin.
With that said, If slavery is any sort of original sin, it is the original sin, or an original sin, of the whole human race.
Slavery was an institution everywhere across the whole world for thousands of years.
Slavery existed in North America, all over North America, before the white man even showed up.
Not just slavery, but slavery in perhaps its most brutal and violent form, as slaves, especially in Mesoamerica, often met their end on the sacrifice stone, when their hearts were ripped out of their chests, and their limbs were hacked off and sometimes eaten.
America didn't invent slavery.
America bears no special or unique guilt for slavery.
What's unique about America in relation to slavery is that we abolished it so quickly, less than a century after our official formation as a country, whereas other countries on the globe took millennia to do it.
Some places still have not really effectively abolished slavery.
See, the real reason that people like Presley call slavery our original sin is because they want to give the impression that we essentially invented the practice.
And some on the left, the really ignorant ones, actually believe that and will say so.
But that's a lie.
It's one of the many lies that has turned us into one of the most guilt-ridden countries on the face of the earth.
Few nations are as focused on the sins of its past as we are.
Is that because other countries have no sins?
Obviously not.
Many of them have done much worse and done it for much longer.
Yet they live in the present and we stay stuck in the past.
Most countries, the functional ones anyway, they have their national heroes, their national myths, their stories, their triumphs.
They're sources of pride and patriotism.
Even if their heroes weren't perfect and their stories were more complicated than they tend to acknowledge, it's good that they have those things.
It provides a sense of shared identity and history and accomplishment.
It grounds them in the present as a people, as a nation.
But here we've torn down all of our heroes, tossed out our myths, rewritten the stories, and it's had the intended effect.
Which is, instead of binding people together as one nation with a shared heritage and identity, it divides us, balkanizes us, deprives us of what we need to be a real functioning country and society.
A nation that hates itself can't thrive and ultimately can't survive.
A nation that hates itself for, you know, no real reason, a nation obsessed with sins from centuries ago, Sins that the whole human race shares and yet no other country worries about or talks about?
That sort of nation will not only fail to survive, but will be driven into collective madness before the end comes.
And that, again, is the point.
It is the intended result.
It's what people like Ayanna Pressley are trying to do.
That's the game.
And our only hope is to realize that it is the game and stop playing it before it's too late.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now check it in with our friends over at Moink.
You know, there's a move right now trying to get you to stop eating meat, eat bugs, eat grass and leaves like some kind of cow.
I don't have the diet of a cow.
I eat the cows, okay?
That's what I believe in.
And Moink, you know, they deliver grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and wild-caught Alaskan salmon directly to your door, helping family farms become financially independent outside of big agriculture.
So that's a good cause you're supporting, along with getting delicious, delicious meat.
Their animals are raised outdoors, their fish swim wild in the ocean,
and Moink meat is free of antibiotics, hormone, sugar, and all the other junk you find
in prepackaged stuff in the meat aisle and everything.
Sign up at moinkbox.com/walsh to get a year of ground beef for free,
and then pick what meats you want delivered with your first box.
That's a good, you know, at my house, we eat like 14 pounds of ground beef a day, literally.
So that's something we need.
Moink was founded by eighth generation farmer who was featured on "Shark Tank."
Host Kevin O'Leary said, "It's the best bacon he's ever tasted."
I can attest to that.
So join the Moink movement today.
Go to moinkbox.com slash Walsh right now and listeners to my show get free ground beef for a year.
That's one year of the best ground beef you'll ever taste, but for a limited time.
Spelled M-O-I-N-K box dot com slash Walsh.
That's moinkbox.com slash Walsh.
Yeah, I do realize if you're watching the show right now on dailywire.com or YouTube, you probably noticed that Polka Dot Friday, sadly, today was cancelled.
Mostly because I forgot the Polka Dot shirt.
And you know what?
I'm not going to apologize for that.
I don't think I owe an apology.
And here's what's going to happen.
I just can't win.
This is how persecuted and victimized I am personally.
That first I get attacked for wearing the polka dot shirt, and now I'm gonna get attacked for not wearing it.
You know?
This is the persecution that I suffer.
And that, frankly, all polka dot wearers suffer on a daily basis.
And it's not talked about enough.
All right, this is from CBS.
It says, the Biden administration announced its intention Thursday to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, including menthol, Reading now from a statement from the FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, she says, quote, banning menthol, the last allowable flavor in cigarettes, and banning all flavors in cigars will help save lives, especially among those disproportionately affected by these deadly products.
With these actions, the FDA will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low income populations, and LGBT individuals.
What?
How?
How do we, how do we, how did the LGBT individuals get involved here?
So menthol cigarettes, um, Especially popular among black Americans, so that's how they're included, but LGBT individuals?
This is just, for leftists, it's a reflex.
Once they start naming the victimized groups, they throw them all in there, because why not?
The FDA pointed to studies suggesting that a menthol ban would help people quit smoking, noting that menthol makes tobacco more palatable and facilitates progression to regular smoking.
The FDA said, one study suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S.
would lead to an additional 923,000 smokers quitting, including 230,000 African Americans.
And then it goes on, last year the House passed a bill banning all flavored e-cigarettes and menthols, but the legislation didn't pass the Senate.
The bans will not be put in place immediately since they're subject to a potentially years-long rulemaking process.
Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said that the move would be historic in protecting kids from tobacco addiction and advancing health equity, particularly among black Americans.
Health equity.
Now, there's plenty that could be said about this, but let me focus on one aspect of this.
And I've commented before about the perversity.
Of having specifically our lawmakers constantly attacking and undermining our law enforcers.
Because that's the situation.
You want to talk about a non-functional society?
Well, this is how you get a non-functional society and especially a non-functional government.
When you've got the people making laws Throwing the people enforcing those laws directly under the bus for enforcing those laws.
And dealing with the ramifications.
So here is a classic example of that.
Where this is a move supported mostly by, I'm sure plenty of Republicans are going to sign on board with it.
Because they love the nanny state BS also.
But this is a move we're getting from the Biden administration and from Democrats, banning menthol cigarettes.
And what does that mean?
Now, yes, they're going to try to enforce this before it gets to the consumer level.
But there's also going to be, we can assume, some consumer level enforcement.
What is that going to entail exactly?
Well, who knows?
We'll find out.
But this is All you're doing is you're giving petty nanny state laws for the cops to enforce on some level.
And that's how you end up with a lot of these cases that often are wrongly described as police brutality.
The cops are doing their job.
They're trying to enforce a law.
The person that they're dealing with responds violently.
And then the cops have to escalate in response, and then next thing you know, there's writhing in the street.
Rinse and repeat over and over and over again.
Think about the, what was it, the Eric Garner case in, I think that was in New York.
And he died during the process of an arrest, and the crime that he had committed was he was selling loose cigarettes.
Okay, well that's, now if you don't want the cops, loose cigarettes meaning he bought a pack and he was selling individual cigarettes.
That's against the law apparently, and at least it was in New York.
Now, if you don't want the cops arresting people for that, and if you don't, if you can't tolerate the possibility that even some citizens will die in the process of that enforcement, then don't pass the law.
But if you pass the law, I've seen people put it, I think a good way of putting it is, if you don't want people to die over this potentially, then don't pass the law.
Doesn't mean we should have no laws, but when you're passing a petty nanny state law, stopping people from selling a single cigarette for 50 cents or whatever they're doing, or smoking menthol cigarettes, then don't pass it.
That's what Democrats do.
They pass a whole bunch of these kinds of laws.
They send the cops out to enforce them.
Cops do that.
And it gets messy.
Enforcing laws is a messy deal.
It's not like, and you could say, well, just enforcing the law doesn't mean you go kill someone.
Eric, you know, the lawmakers never said that you should go execute a citizen for selling loose cigarettes.
Well, yes, right.
But that's not what happened.
They're trying to enforce it.
The person they're dealing with is resisting that enforcement.
And then what do you do?
Do you just say, OK, well, never mind.
If you don't want this law to be enforced on you, then we're going to go home.
Forget it.
Sorry to bother you, sir.
No, they're resisting.
Now you have now the state has to impose its will.
If it's not willing to impose its will, then again, the law shouldn't be there.
And that's how the escalation happens.
And sometimes it gets it turns deadly.
And often the fault for that doesn't fall on the cops, it can fall on the perp, and it also falls on the lawmakers who made those laws to begin with.
All right.
It's just like the case, the case Dante Wright.
We were told initially, and we know that this is false now, but we were told initially that he was pulled over for having an air freshener in his car.
And people were saying how absurd it is that somebody would be pulled over for that.
Well, that's not what actually happened, right?
So, that was a falsehood?
He was pulled over, I think it was... I forget, but there was some other traffic violation that he was pulled over for originally, and then they found out that he had a warrant for his arrest, stemming from an armed robbery, and they tried to arrest him, as you do with someone with a wanted armed robber.
But even if it was, let's just pretend for a minute that he was pulled over for having an air freshener hanging from his car.
Well, who would you blame for that?
See, Democrats and the left, they were blaming the cops.
Why would you pull someone over for that?
They didn't pass the law.
If there is a law against having an air freshener hanging from your car, don't blame the cops.
Blame the idiots who passed a law like that.
You know, do we want to?
Are we saying to cops we're going to put them in a position where they decide what laws they enforce?
Is that the kind of police reform we want?
All right, number two.
Speaking of the cops, a student at Cypress College was in a Zoom class.
And he was trying to explain to his teacher why it's okay for cops to be portrayed positively in children's shows and why cops even are heroes.
And I don't know, listen to this discussion.
This is a student and a teacher.
And you tell me, who is the more reasonable one?
Which of the people here, if you had to pick one to be the teacher of the class, which one would you choose?
Let's listen.
I think cops are heroes and they have to have a difficult job, but we have to have a fine life.
Oh, I'm not.
I mean, I'd say a good majority of them.
You have bad people in every business and every part.
Yet, a lot of police officers have committed atrocious crimes and have gotten away with it and have never been convicted of any of it.
And I say this as a person who has family members.
Who are police officers?
Yes, I understand.
And this is what I believe.
This is my opinion.
And this is, you know, not popular to say, but I do support our police.
We have bad people, and the people that do bad things should be brought to justice.
I agree with that.
But I think that... Say it again.
They haven't.
Well, I agree with you on that point of they should, right?
So what is your bottom line point?
You're saying police officers should be revered, viewed as heroes?
They belong on TV shows with children?
I think they are heroes in a sense, because they come to your need, and they come and help you, and they have a problem just like every other business, but we should fix that.
But I think that they're heroes.
I think that's the problem with looking at it as a business, because they're actually supposed to protect and serve.
Yeah, actually, it gets even worse from there.
But the question we started with here, who do you think is the more reasonable one in that exchange?
If you had to hire one of those people to teach a class, who would you choose?
Because I'm choosing the student.
Here he is, here's the student talking to a college professor and trying to break things down in a very logical way and say, what he's trying to communicate, and he did a good job of communicating it, is that Policing is a noble line of work.
Many cops do the job heroically.
There are some bad ones and they should be punished.
That's it.
That's the whole thing.
And this somehow confuses her.
She doesn't understand what he's trying to get across.
Think about how sad it is that, you know, you notice how he qualified the statement.
I don't blame him for doing that.
But he said, this is not a popular opinion, but most cops do a good job.
He's right, it's not a popular opinion, but this is what is controversial now, to say something like that.
I can remember 10 years ago, even seven or eight years ago, when everybody thought that.
It used to be popular across the whole political spectrum, to celebrate police officers.
And back in those days, nobody ever claimed that every cop was good.
It's just we generally understood that it's a tough job.
Society needs people to do this job, and we respect the people who do it.
But you send your kid to college, this is what you're paying for.
Plunging into your cell for your child into potentially decades of debt for that.
Alright, number three, this is from the New York Post.
It says, a seven-year-old, this is a terrible story, a seven-year-old girl was killed and her mother injured after pit bulls attacked them in a North Carolina backyard.
The mother and daughter were taking care of their neighbor's two pit bulls, and at one point they attacked.
Garner Police Lieutenant Michael McIver says, this is a horrible tragedy for all involved.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to both families and all those who responded.
Their dogs were reportedly taken to an animal shelter and it's unclear what sparked the fatal attack.
You want to talk about unpopular views?
Here's one of my many unpopular views.
That it's, I think it's ridiculous and reckless to own pit bulls.
I do think pitbulls should be banned from communities and neighborhoods.
You see these kinds of stories every year.
Most pitbulls aren't out mauling people, but pitbulls are perfectly capable of mauling especially child to death, and you're just kind of hoping if you have a pitbull that they're not going to be one of the pitbulls that does that.
And how do you achieve that?
It's by suppressing their innate, wild, aggressive nature.
And if you don't appropriately suppress that, then they're gonna maul a child to death.
I guess I don't understand why take that risk.
There are a couple of dogs, two or three dog species, that are responsible for pretty much all of the maulings.
Then all of the deaths.
Why take that risk?
If you really feel the need to have a pet in your house, why choose one that could, if it decides to, kill a child in the neighborhood?
I need a good reason.
And if your reason is, well, I think the animals are cute, so?
Is that a good enough reason to take that risk?
I just don't.
I don't get it.
I don't understand.
Bringing pitbulls.
Your hope, and what you always hear from pitbull owners, right, is, well, my pity would never do that.
You don't know what your pitbull will do.
It's a dog.
It's an animal.
You know almost nothing about what's going on inside that creature's head.
It's a mystery to you.
It's a mystery to everybody.
It could snap at any time if it wanted to, and if it decides to, it could kill somebody.
Or disfigure them for life?
I don't see it.
I don't see the point.
All right.
I want to play this for you.
One of Chauvin's, one of the jurors in the Chauvin trial was interviewed by CBS, and he said that he felt no pressure to reach a guilty verdict.
And here's how he explained his reasoning.
Let's watch.
Did you feel pressure because you knew the world was watching that, you know, we have to reach a guilty verdict here?
Not at all.
And I don't think any of us felt like that.
I for sure did not.
I for sure did not feel like that.
The pressure more so came from just being in the room and being under stress.
But it wasn't pressure to come to a guilty verdict.
What were you stressed about?
What were you all stressed about?
We were just stressed about just the simple fact that every day we had to come in and watch a black man die.
That alone is stressful.
OK, so maybe that's true.
I don't know.
It's what he has to say, of course.
The jurors can't come out and say, oh, yeah, we only did this because we were under pressure.
Obviously, they're not going to say that.
They can't say that.
So who really knows?
I will say that I would find it more believable if he said something like, yeah, I felt pressure, but we put that to the side and we got down to work.
See, that I'd find more believable, but claiming that you felt no pressure, none, felt no pressure at all, while there are mobs in the street, in your own community, that you have to drive by and through on your way home every day, threatening to burn down the city explicitly if there's not a guilty verdict, I just find it difficult to believe that you would feel no pressure at all.
Any human would feel pressure.
It's not weakness.
I would feel pressure.
Any person would feel pressure.
Whether or not you cave to it is a different story, but you would certainly feel it.
So when you hear from the jurors in Australia here now that, oh, no, that wasn't a factor at all.
We didn't even know.
We didn't even notice.
I find that very hard to believe.
Does that mean even if they're being Dismissive of the pressure and not telling the full story there.
Does that mean that they reached their conclusion because of the pressure?
No, but it's still it leaves it leaves that question unanswered.
All right, finally, studyfinds.org reports this.
Despite its negative reputation, a new study finds that gossip can actually be a good thing for people to spread.
So gossip is good, according to a study.
Study authors say gossip isn't just about passing on rumors and saying bad things about others.
In fact, their report reveals it also serves to create social connections and even helps people learn new things.
The only reason I read this is that it actually rings somewhat true to me.
So gossip is a, it's a, it forms social cohesion.
It's a good thing.
Go out and gossip about your coworkers and your neighbors and everything.
It's a perfect thing to do.
The only reason I read this is that it actually rings somewhat true to me.
You know, I've always thought about gossiping.
And the reason why gossiping is common among women is that, is that they're,
they're more empathetic than men generally.
So gossip to me is kind of like the, the, it stems maybe from a positive instinct of empathy.
instinct of empathy.
And gossip is kind of the ugly side of empathy.
Because when you're gossiping about somebody, even if it's negative, the point is you care about what's going on in this other person's life.
Even in a negative way.
So there's sort of an element of empathy.
It's like empathy turned upside down.
Um, kind of like hate is, is, you know, the other side of love.
Now, for me, I know that I don't gossip at all, really, but I realized that the reason is not because I think gossip is wrong, although I do think it's wrong, it's that I just don't really care what's happening in anybody else's life.
So when you come up to me and gossip and say, oh, guess what's happening with this person?
Yeah, I know it's wrong to gossip, but also I simply don't care what's happening in that person's life at all.
So don't tell me about it.
That's sort of my defense of gossiping, I guess, in case you were curious about it.
All right, let's go to reading the YouTube comments.
This is Engineer or Bust says, Matt Walsh's hair is too shiny and prim these days.
I miss when he looked like a maniac and was ranting in his car.
You know, I like to think I still look like a maniac and I'm still ranting, even if not in the car.
The spirit of those days is still within me.
Oh, wait a second.
They just put it up on the screen.
I forgot.
I moved on to the comments.
I forgot we had another TikTok video we have to play.
I can't believe I forgot this.
Thank you, Control Room, for reminding me.
Yes, we have another TikTok video.
It's a tradition now.
And there's so many that sometimes we've got to play more than one a day sometimes to get all these videos out here.
Here's another one.
And this is, I believe, an ode to Fauci that we all are now going to experience.
Here it is.
♪ Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm ♪ Keep me protected from COVID-19.
Tell me the trick to how I'm Moderna.
Fix up that magic Pfizer or Moderna.
Biden, give me a poke.
They call you sleepy, but you're pretty woke.
♪ I'm so tired of quarantine ♪ ♪ Mr. Biden, bring my vaccine ♪
♪ I want J-4-4 ♪ ♪ I want J-4-4 ♪ ♪ Here's your Biden ♪
Okay. ♪ Where's my vaccine ♪ - Let's just stop this.
I'll just go on. ♪ I'm in a rollout ♪ ♪ That's good for a vaccine ♪
I love TikTok videos.
It's just, I think he does the entire song.
This is the first time I've actually watched the entire thing.
I saw one second of it and... Okay, we can turn it off.
I still hear it.
Please.
Please stop.
Get that out of my ear.
I watched one second of that, really, and I knew that it was something I had to inflict on the audience, but I hadn't watched more of it than I just did.
I wasn't expecting the sexual undertones there, but there they were.
The people who are making these songs about vaccines, their odes to vaccines, and Dr.
What would they have thought about themselves, like in the year 2019, if someone had shown them in a crystal ball that this is what they would be doing in a year and a half?
It is pretty disturbing stuff, but there you go.
You're welcome.
All right, moving back now to the YouTube comments, here's another one.
It says, hey Matt, love your show.
If a man is not attracted to a woman sexually, but they share common interests, why can't they be friends?
Well, yeah, we talked yesterday about why men and women can't be friends, but there is some qualification to that statement.
Like I said, men and women can be friends in certain contexts when it's kind of mediated, right?
Married couples are friends and each member of each couple is friends with each member of the other.
So that's a way where men and women are friends.
They can get along as friends at work.
What I'm really talking about are a deeper friendship bond, like a fraternal bond.
Is it possible for a man and a woman to have a deeper, platonic fraternal bond that involves especially them getting together one-on-one outside of these kinds of contexts?
And there I'm saying, no, it's not really possible.
But when it can happen, like you're talking about here, what if the man's not sexually interested in the woman?
Even there, I don't think it really works, but if it does, it's because, as I said yesterday, it's sort of like the man is seeing the woman as another man.
So he can make it work if he almost sees her that way.
If he can fit her into the context of a man-man friendship.
And that's why you're here.
Women who talk about how they have a lot of male friends, a lot of times they'll talk, they'll brag about all the manly type things they like to do.
Because that's what they have to do in order to fit in.
Is to sort of pretend to be a man.
At least for the purposes of the relationship.
Another comment says, I see no problem with being anti-abortion and also anti-elephant slaughter.
Humans are morally more significant than elephants, but elephants are arguably higher on the continuum of living beings, shall we say, than are cows, pigs, or chickens.
Yeah, I have no problem with that.
I have no problem with any aspect of that.
That's not how I feel.
I don't really care if people hunt elephants, frankly.
But I can totally respect that.
As long as you are pro-life for humans, And you also understand that there is a hierarchy, or as you say, continuum of living beings.
But I agree with you that there is an implication there where it's not like, okay, if we say that human beings are the most valuable and the most significant life forms on Earth, which they are, it's not like it's human beings and then every other life form is lumped together in terms of their importance and value and all of that.
Well, we know that's not the case.
I think everybody would agree that, you know, a gorilla is more important than a cockroach.
Almost nobody gets upset when you step on a cockroach.
If you just walked up to a gorilla and shot it in the head, I think most people would be upset about that.
So, yeah.
So I'm fine with that.
And then if you say that, you know, as you get higher in that hierarchy, it becomes more morally problematic to kill those animals.
Yeah, that's understandable.
I think that's a perfectly rational viewpoint.
Was there another one?
Okay, here's one more.
Says, uh, fine, I'll be banned, but Matt... Matt has entered jerkdom here with his take on children COVID vaccines.
The vaccines aren't for keeping the kids from getting sick, therefore making sure those mobile petri dishes become a part of herd immunity so their grandparents can visit them again.
Stop being a jerk, Matt, you're better than that.
No, I'm not, first of all.
How could you watch this show and think that I'm better than being a jerk?
Have you not been paying attention at all?
Um...
And he said, well, will my kids get the shot?
Of course, because I don't want them to be the vector that killed off grandma.
As for consent, didn't you make the argument a few weeks ago that kids don't have the mental capacity of giving rational consent, but for a COVID-19 shot, they need to give their consent.
A bit duplicitous, Matt.
Are you sure you aren't becoming a Democrat?
Your selective logic is beginning to make you sound like one.
Okay.
Few things here.
First of all, we were talking yesterday about children who are being signed up for their parents for vaccine trials.
Okay, so they're kind of like the lab rats that are being experimented on to find out how it works with kids, what the side effects are, how effective it is.
We were talking specifically about that.
And no, I would not sign my kid up for any medical trial, period.
I don't care what it is.
But then what about once we get past the trials and kids are getting it and everything and it's been deemed safe by the powers that be?
Well, a few things here.
First of all, you say, well, we want to make sure they don't kill grandma.
Grandma can get the vaccine.
Hopefully your grandma already has it.
So they're already vaccinated.
And we know that kids, studies have shown, not only are kids far less personally affected by it, but they're far less likely to spread it and carry it on.
So what is the chance that an unvaccinated child who is already very low risk for spreading and being affected by COVID, what's the chance that they spread it to a fully vaccinated adult, and that adult then gets very sick?
What are the chances of that?
Now, I don't know exactly.
That's the point.
I don't know what the exact percentage point chance is, but it's very, very vanishingly low.
We do know that.
As I've been saying all week, the CDC says that something like, of all vaccinated people who have gone on to actually contract the virus, it's like .008%.
So you're gonna get your kid vaccinated on the .008% chance that they get someone sick?
It's actually probably lower than that.
Because those adults who were fully vaccinated and got sick anyway, first of all, how sick did they get?
And who do they get it from?
Probably not children, for the most part.
So you're probably talking about a less than .008% chance.
Are you going to inject this substance into a child based on that?
You're going to make your own decision as a parent.
I can tell you, me personally as a parent, the answer is no.
As you all know, The Daily Wire has been growing like crazy.
Not only did we move the whole company across the country, we also released our first feature film, struck up a movie deal with Gina Carano, and launched a new talk show hosted by Candace Owens, all within the last six months.
That's six months of activity.
Only imagine what we have to do next.
We've been moving at the speed of light over here, so that's why I'm really excited for the future of the company and all of us here at The Daily Wire.
We'd like to express our gratitude to you, our audience, for making all of this possible.
We want to continue to include you in our future plans.
Every day on my show, I talk about a lot of Amazing products and services and things you can get from sponsors that I love and use, but we want to get to know you better so we can choose our sponsors with you in mind so that we're not wasting your time.
We're telling you about sponsors that are really going to help you in your life.
So please go to dailywire.com slash Walsh and fill out my audience survey to tell us a little bit more about yourself and to sweeten the whole experience.
Those of you that complete the survey will be entered to win a $1,000 gift card.
But you can only take the survey once per Daily Wire show.
So if you want to increase your chances of winning $1,000, go listen to Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, or Andrew Klavan to get access to their surveys as well.
Again, my survey link is dailywire.com slash Walsh.
We'd love to hear from you.
We'd also love for you to watch Candace tonight.
Don't miss tonight's episode where she sits down with Dave Rubin and they discuss everything from the recall election to Caitlyn Jenner's run to replace him and much more.
Next week we're changing up the schedule.
Candace will stream on Wednesday for an interview with a very special guest.
Guests that you're not going to want to miss.
So join and stream Candice live on Fridays at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, only on Daily Wire and get 25% off a new membership with code Candice at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
But hurry, the deal's going away soon.
So go there now, dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we must discuss a story that, in another time and another place, you would assume is parody.
It starts with a man named Kelly Donahue, a contestant on the now-trebeckless Jeopardy.
Donahue, on Tuesday, appeared on the game show after his third win.
While being introduced by the host, he briefly flashed three fingers to the camera.
You can see it.
Three fingers, signifying that he'd won three times.
We know that this is the meaning behind the three fingers because the day before, he had flashed two fingers, and before that, one.
Now, I'm no math whiz, but I'm starting to sense maybe a pattern here.
Now, if you're a normal person, a well-adjusted person, you might see the three fingers, not understand the context, and not do any research into the issue because it doesn't matter.
Such a person, the normal, well-adjusted type, if he sees someone hold up three fingers and doesn't know why, will think, oh, well, I guess there's some banal reason why he's holding up three fingers.
Hmm, okay, well, I guess I'll just continue on living my life now.
But the problem, of course, is that we live in a country overrun by people who are not normal or well-adjusted.
Many people, sadly, are emotionally stunted lunatics with the IQs of doorknobs.
And so the fact that a guy on Jeopardy held up three fingers became a problem, a controversy, a source of outrage.
It was decided by the Doorknob Clan that Kelly's three-finger salute was actually a secret message to his fellow white supremacists.
Kelly Donahue may seem like a mild-mannered Jeopardy!
contestant, but beneath that facade, he's a skinhead and a terrorist.
And we know this because he moved his fingers in a certain way.
That's what the mob decided.
As the controversy grew, a post appeared on Medium, purportedly from a group of former Jeopardy!
contestants, almost Almost 600 former contestants apparently signed this letter denouncing Kelly Donahue for holding up three fingers.
Again, I'm not making this up.
This is not a parody.
This is real.
This is a lengthy letter posted, apparently signed by 600 people, condemning someone for arranging their fingers in a certain way.
The letter first condemned Donahue for apparently saying the word gypsy on Monday, so the day before the three-finger, um, uh, assault.
He said the word gypsy in response to a clue.
Um, the word gypsy is now offensive, apparently.
I'm not sure what else you're supposed to call gypsies, I also don't care.
But, the gypsy kerfuffle was not the biggest problem.
As the letter says, reading now, it says, quote, Tuesday, April 27th was a more widely felt misstep.
During his on-camera introduction, Kelly made a gesture with his hand that he has since claimed was an indication that he had won three games.
He had on previous episodes indicated with one finger and two fingers that he had won one in two games, and no reasonable person would have interpreted those gestures differently.
However, This gesture was not a clear-cut symbol for the number three.
He held his thumb and forefinger together with his other three fingers, extended and palm facing inward, and he tapped his chest.
This, whether intentional or not, resembled very closely a gesture that has been co-opted by white power groups, alt-right groups, and an anti-government group that calls itself the Three Percenters.
In a public Facebook post that has since been deleted, Kelly states, that's a number three, no more, no less.
His public Facebook profile also features a cover photo of Frank Sinatra making a similar gesture.
This was either erased or made private on Wednesday morning, along with hundreds of public comments on his few Jeopardy-related posts.
Regardless of his stated intent, the gesture is a racist dog whistle.
Some of the first people to notice this were not affiliated with Jeopardy in any way.
They were viewers who couldn't believe what they'd seen, captured it on video, and shared it on Twitter.
Among them were people of color who, needless to say, are attuned to racist messaging, and not appreciative that the show allowed this symbol to be broadcast.
Oh, but wait.
It gets dumber.
Continuing.
Most problematic to us as a contestant community is the fact that Kelly has not publicly apologized for the ramifications of the gesture he made.
If something has been misconstrued, an apology and a total disavowal of any connection to white supremacist doctrines is called for.
Oh my gosh.
We saw that gesture air on television.
We are among the public it affected.
And we are a diverse group of people.
People of color, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups already live in the United States and in Canada that have structural, institutional racism, sexism, antisemitism, ableism, homophobia, and transphobia embedded into their history and function.
These people deal with microaggressions nearly every day of their lives through words, actions, and assumptions that remind them on a constant basis that they are not the default, they are not the mainstream, they are not real citizens.
And that is hard enough.
That is enough for them to bear and enough for us to keep trying to recognize, to address, and to fight.
That is already a series of walls and fences that keeps us from truly reaching the American ideal of e pluribus unum.
We cannot stand up for hate.
We cannot stand next to hate.
By the way, this is all still about the fingers.
Okay.
We cannot stand on stage with something that looks like hate.
We are ashamed to be associated with brands and identities that suffer the taint of hateful statements and actions.
Particularly if they go unchallenged by those at the top.
All right.
It's hard to know where to begin in dissecting this abject madness.
In encountering the leftist mindset, I feel much as I feel when walking into one of my kids' rooms and seeing the chaos of toys and debris strewn all over the place.
I don't know where to begin in cleaning it up.
Fortunately, I don't have to.
I tell them to do it.
It's their room, knowing full well that they're just going to stuff everything under the bed.
I have a don't ask, don't tell policy on those sorts of things.
Just get the mess out of my sight.
I don't care where it goes.
Mommy feels differently, you know that, if she's telling you to click, but for me, just, I don't wanna see it.
Any case, back on subject.
In trying to sort through the mess of leftist psychosis on display here, I suppose we could start with the fact that the three finger symbol is not a white power symbol, and never was.
The left simply decided at some point that it is, or should be, and announced that heretofore, if you arrange your fingers in that way, you're a racist, whether you meant to be or not.
And we could also note the truly diabolical lunacy inherent in the idea that intent doesn't matter.
The outraged members of the contestant community, the newest marginalized group on display, on the scene here, maybe they'll get added to the LGBT acronym, you know, L-G-B-T-Q-I-A-C-C for contestant community.
But they say that even if he didn't mean to flash a white power sign, he should still apologize for their misinterpretation.
Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite.
If you wildly misconstrue someone else's meaning and intent and accuse them of saying something they didn't say, it's you who should apologize.
You're at fault.
I don't have to apologize to you for your false accusations against me.
We might also mention the incredible fragility demonstrated here.
We hear so much about white fragility, but what can we say about a person who feels traumatized and attacked by the number three?
And how do these people ever watch Sesame Street?
Today's number is number three.
They go screaming out of the rooms, hide under the bed.
Make it stop!
What is there to be said about people who are suffering PTSD because of the way a Jeopardy contestant positioned his fingers?
This is a maniacal level of fragility.
These are people who in saner times would be committed to asylums.
I'm not even kidding.
These are people who should be in lunatic asylums.
They are psychotic.
Now, these are all things that we might say.
If we wanted to defend Kelly Donahue from these outrageous attacks.
But I have a policy that I've told you before about defending people from the cancel mob.
I only defend those who are willing to defend themselves, and there's a reason for that.
I can't defend you if you're going to kneecap me in mid-defense by apologizing for doing the very thing that I was just defending.
And so I can't defend Donahue, sadly.
I can't defend him because of this, which he posted to his Facebook yesterday.
Here's what he said.
I'm truly horrified with what has been posted about me on social media.
I absolutely, unequivocally condemn white supremacy and racism of any kind.
People who know me personally know that I'm not a racist, but for the public at large it bears repeating.
I am not a racist and I reject and condemn white supremacy and all forms of bigotry for the evil they are.
It's shameful to me to think anyone would try to use the stage of Jeopardy!
to advance or promote such a disgusting agenda.
During the taping of my fourth episode, I was simply raising three fingers to mark my third win.
There was nothing more I was trying to indicate.
I deeply regret this terrible misunderstanding.
I never meant to hurt a soul, and I assure you, I am no friend of racists and white supremacists.
I removed the previous post because the comments were more than I could bear.
I stand by the statements itself, and you can find it reported in other media.
I did, however, understand the fair criticism that I didn't include a forceful condemnation of white supremacy in my initial statement.
I hope my feelings on that matter are clear now.
Okay.
Well, Kelly, you're on your own, bud.
With that, you're on your own.
Not gonna get a defense, not gonna get any sympathy, because I am tired of this.
I'm tired of it.
I know it can be overwhelming when you've got thousands of people coming after you, accusing you of being racist, saying all these things that aren't true.
Happens to me a lot.
But we need to require of each other a little bit of a spine, just a little bit.
Not asking for much.
Apologizing and barking on command like a dog because these scumbags told you to.
Condemning white supremacy like there's any reason for you to do it.
As if there was ever any indication at all that you're a white supremacist.
No.
Now, you know, now I lump you in with them.
Now I feel the same way about you as I do about the rest of them.
I do.
Now, here's the thing.
When you apologize for something, you admit guilt.
Now, you're not guilty, obviously.
All you did was hold up three fingers.
But you've admitted guilt for something you didn't do.
Because you can't apologize for something... You can't actually apologize for something that you didn't do, right?
The apology doesn't mean anything.
It's like if someone, you know, if Bob comes up to you and tells you that Jim just punched him in the face, are you going to say, oh, I apologize for that?
What are you, you didn't do it.
What are you apologizing for?
Or better yet, because in this case, nothing happened at all.
It's better if someone, if someone comes up to you and says that, you know, and accuses you of sending your invisible dragon over to their house to burn it down.
And you say, oh, oh, I apologize for that.
You didn't do it.
So by apologizing, in order to apologize, you must admit guilt.
It comes with the territory.
Inherent in the apology is an admission of guilt.
And that's why it becomes impossible to defend you.
You said you were guilty, basically.
The appropriate response to this, Kelly, is to say to the people accusing you of this, F you.
I apologize for nothing.
You people owe an apology to me, you lunatics.
And by the way, I'm going to sue you for defamation.
I need all of you personally to apologize to me publicly and beg for my forgiveness or I will not stop until I have bankrupted you all in court.
That's what the response should have been.
But it wasn't, so Kelly Donahue is canceled.
All the people trying to cancel him are canceled.
And again, we end the week with a round of cancellation for everyone, which is always a fun way to end it.
All right.
We'll leave it there for today and for the week.
Have a great weekend, everyone.
See you on Monday.
Godspeed.
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 Wall 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 Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
