Ep. 729 - Only Democrats Are Allowed To Make Hitler Analogies, According To Democrats
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left has gone into spasms of outrage because Marjorie Taylor Greene made a Holocaust analogy. These are the same people who make Holocaust analogies every time they open their mouths. But somehow we’re supposed to take their outrage seriously this time. Well, I don’t. Also Five Headlines including breaking news that the COVID vaccine is 100 percent effective preventing COVID in kids. Do you know what else is nearly 100 percent effective in preventing COVID in kids? Their immune system. Also, Minneapolis commemorates the anniversary of George Floyd’s death with a drive by shooting at his memorial site. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the viral video which seeks to prove that it’s impossible for a black person to be racist against a white person.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the left has gone into spasms of outrage because Marjorie Taylor Greene made a Holocaust analogy.
These are the same people who make Holocaust analogies every time they open their mouths, but somehow we're supposed to take their outrage seriously this time.
Well, I don't, and I'll explain why.
Also, five headlines, including breaking news that the COVID vaccine is 100% effective in preventing COVID in kids.
Do you know what else is nearly 100% effective in preventing COVID in kids?
Their immune system.
Also, Minneapolis commemorates the anniversary of George Floyd's death with a drive-by shooting at his memorial site, sort of appropriate.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the viral video which seeks to prove that it's impossible for a black person to be racist against a white person.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Before the advent of policy genius, if you wanted to get life insurance and
find especially affordable life insurance and find it quickly,
well, there was really no way to do it.
It was a huge hassle.
But PolicyGenius makes it a lot easier and they have solved this problem for you and for all of us.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare quotes from over a dozen top insurers all in one place.
Why compare?
Well, you could save 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with PolicyGenius.
You could also save $1,300 or more per year on life insurance by using PolicyGenius to compare policies.
The licensed experts at PolicyGenius work for you, not the insurance companies, so you can trust them to help you navigate every step of the shopping and buying process.
They're in your corner.
You don't have to worry about conflicts of interest or anything like that.
The kind of service that they provide has earned PolicyGenius five-star ratings across thousands of reviews on Trustpilot and Google.
And getting started is really easy.
First, just head to PolicyGenius.com.
Figure out what kind of life insurance coverage you want.
When you're ready to apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle the paperwork and the scheduling for you.
They make it that easy.
So head to PolicyGenius.com to get started right now.
PolicyGenius.
When it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right.
The rules from the left are very clear.
Just because they get to do and say certain things doesn't mean you get to do or say the same things.
And this holds true across the board in many areas, but especially it's true for Hitler and Holocaust analogies.
As you no doubt recall, Democrats and leftists across the spectrum at every level spent the past half decade comparing Donald Trump to Hitler and his every executive action or policy proposal to the Holocaust.
They invoked the Nazis at every turn, reflexively accusing their political opponents of being Nazis.
I've been called a Nazi myself more times than I can count, in spite of the fact that I've never participated in any genocide of any kind to my memory, nor have I ever expressed any allegiance to or affinity with the Nazi party.
There's no factual basis for calling me a Nazi or you or Trump, but it was never about facts.
For them, when they say Nazi, they simply mean that your opinions are bad, in their opinion, and the Nazis are bad.
And therefore, since you're both bad, you're the same.
That's as far as the similarities have to go in order to justify the comparison in their minds.
And it's not just with the Nazis.
These are the same people who will accuse you of directly causing hundreds of trans people to commit suicide if you so much as state that women don't have penises.
These are people who will throw suicide, tragedy, death, genocide, holocaust around like they're water balloons.
Whatever is required to land a hit on their ideological opponents.
And yet, as established, none of this gives you license to do the same.
They have different rules.
They have a different lane that they run in.
And you better stay in your own lane, or there will be hell to pay.
Marjorie Taylor Greene learned that yesterday when she sent out a tweet comparing vaccine passports to the gold star that Jews were forced to wear under the Nazis.
Greene tweeted, quote, vaccinated employees get a vaccination logo just like the Nazis forced Jewish people to wear a gold star.
Vaccine passports and mask mandates create discrimination against un-vaxxed people who trust their immune systems to a virus that is 99% survivable.
99% survivable. Now, so that was a tweet. And that is, to my mind, a sort of silly comparison.
Overheated.
I am very opposed to vaccine passports, but this isn't the comparison that I would draw.
Yet Green's point here, first of all, comparison aside, is correct.
It is wrong to discriminate against unvaccinated people, and vaccine passports are a terrible idea with all kinds of potentially awful ramifications.
Whatever you think of the Nazi tie-in, the analogy she draws here is utterly par for the course.
People do it all the time, Democrats especially, but not just them.
People everywhere, across the internet, are always invoking the Nazis and World War II and the Holocaust to make their point.
Is that because they're anti-Semites?
No.
See, if they're anti-Semitic and they're Nazi sympathizers, then they would support the Holocaust and they wouldn't use it to illustrate how evil something is.
The whole point of the comparison is that the Holocaust was bad.
That's the point.
The constant Nazi analogies are really just the result of, uh, not anti-Semitism, but a kind of intellectual laziness and a lack of imagination.
Nothing more sinister than that, most of the time.
Certainly in this case, it's not sinister.
It's not a big deal.
It's not some great evil thing that Marjorie Taylor Greene has done.
She's just done what everyone on the internet is doing every day, all day, all the time.
In summary, who cares?
Well, the left cares.
They care about this hyperbolic Nazi analogy.
This one outraged them.
The ones they make all day, every day, all the time, nonstop are okay.
But this one was beyond the pale.
Marjorie Taylor Greene's tweet set off a day's worth, and now two days worth, of over-the-top, hand-wringing, outrage, condemnations, solemn conversations about the grave threat that Marjorie Taylor Greene poses to our democracy.
Her tweet was condemned by every Democrat, every media outlet, even the Auschwitz Museum felt the need to chime in.
Cable News yesterday featured many breathless segments, like this one, with John Berman on CNN.
Listen to this.
It is not only ahistoric, it is abhorrent.
It's also apparently allowable under House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who hasn't commented on it and refused to punish Greene for past anti-Semitic statements she made.
Wearing a mask compared to the murder of six million people?
It's so far beyond the realm of decency, it could only possibly be made worse by comments from Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I stand by all of my statements.
I said nothing wrong.
And I think any rational Jewish person didn't like what happened in Nazi Germany.
And any rational Jewish person doesn't like what's happening with overbearing mass mandates.
Any rational Jewish person?
I'm Jewish.
I'm not at all religious, and thank God my family made it to this country decades before the Holocaust, but that's my heritage.
And I promised you that Congresswoman Taylor Greene, she thinks I'm Jewish.
So as a rational Jewish person, let me just say to Marjorie Taylor Greene, don't you dare speak for me.
Not if you're going to compare health measures or anything to the Holocaust.
In a tweet last night, she said, I'm sorry if my words make people uncomfortable.
No, they don't make me uncomfortable.
They make me sick.
How dare you!
Abhorrent!
It makes me sick!
I'm a Jew myself, says John Berman.
Sure, he doesn't care about his faith, he says, and he's never said a single word of protest against any left-winger making a Holocaust analogy ever, but even so, he is outraged!
Offended!
He's never heard of anything so terrible in his life!
And where are the Republicans?
Why aren't they condemning this?
They must condemn!
Condemn it once!
Condemn this thing that we're pretending to be upset about!
Condemn it!
Well, don't worry.
Republicans are always ready to bark like dogs whenever the left snaps its fingers.
And right on time, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy issued a statement condemning Marjorie Taylor Greene in no uncertain terms.
He said, in part, Quote, Marjorie is wrong, and her intentional decision to compare the horrors of the Holocaust with wearing masks is appalling.
The Holocaust is the greatest atrocity committed in history.
The fact that this needs to be stated today is deeply troubling.
Americans must stand together to defeat anti-Semitism and any attempt to diminish the history of the Holocaust.
What a pathetic little worm this guy is.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise also condemned.
So did Liz Cheney, of course, calling the comments vile and evil and lunacy.
Evil.
It's evil now.
I mean, there are a lot of evil, but everyone on the Internet is evil now.
You included.
Everyone.
CBS has a report on other GOP leaders who joined in the condemnation parade.
Quoting now, it says, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi responded that the speaker, quote, has for decades spoken out against anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic attacks, including just yesterday.
Citing a tweet from Pelosi down against anti-Semitism.
Leader McCarthy waited days to even issue a statement in response to one of his members demeaning the Holocaust.
Any, hold on a second.
Demeaning the Holocaust?
But yeah, we wouldn't want to demean and insult the Holocaust.
What does that even mean?
Demeaning the Holocaust is a horrific, horrible thing.
You wouldn't want to demean it.
Quote, and he clearly intends to continue to welcome Marjorie Taylor Greene in the GOP and shield her from any real consequences or accountability for her anti-Semitism.
This is according to Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hamill.
Leader McCarthy's silence has spoken volumes about his allegiance to the most extreme elements of the GOP conference.
Green's recent comments may have precipitated a response from McCarthy following criticism from prominent Republicans.
Quote, please educate yourself so that you can realize how absolutely wrong and inappropriate it is to compare proof of vaccination with the six million Jews who were exterminated by the Nazis.
You are an embarrassment to yourself and the GOP, according to Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
He said in a tweet on Tuesday morning.
Jeff Miller, a prominent GOP lobbyist and close friend of McCarthy, who sits on the Holocaust Memorial Museum Council, slammed Green in a tweet on Tuesday, saying he would be happy to arrange for her to visit the U.S.
Holocaust Museum.
Quote, then maybe going forward you wouldn't make any more disgusting, ignorant, and offensive tweets.
If I'm wrong and you're not ignorant about the Holocaust, then you are disgusting.
Now, you know, I could go and check to see if any of these blathering phonies and idiots ever said anything like this to any Democrat who has invoked the Holocaust or Hitler, but I don't think I need to check.
Because we all know the answer.
They didn't.
We also know that these Republicans, being good little puppies and doing as they're told, will never actually succeed in satisfying their masters.
Even though Republicans condemned, as they were instructed to, and did it within hours of the offending tweet, Still wasn't enough.
Wasn't fast enough.
Wasn't passionate enough.
As Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash, back on CNN, made clear.
Why do you think it took these Republican leaders so long to condemn these outrageous comments from this Congresswoman?
It's a difficult question to answer, and we haven't been able to answer, to ask any of the leaders themselves why it took them so long.
For you and me, it's not just political.
It's not just the story we're covering.
This is a very personal issue, given the fact that both of us, we lost family during the Holocaust.
That's right, and none of this should be political.
This isn't about political party.
This is about right and wrong and ignorance and whitewashing, something that was a stain on humanity and human history.
And yeah, I mean, the fact that Auschwitz had to come out with this incredibly powerful tweet.
My grandparents were Nazi refugees.
My great-grandparents perished at Auschwitz.
Yeah, you know, maybe a yellow star was something that was, you know, yellow star was horrible.
Being gassed, which is what my great grandparents were, is a whole different thing.
And to compare that to the notion of public health and wearing a mask is just beyond the pale.
I can't imagine what it's like for you, Wolf.
Your parents were in slave labor camps.
The really offensive thing is that these soulless sociopaths would use their own dead family members to score political points because that's what they're doing here.
Now, if you think I'm being harsh, then please, please just show me the clip from two years ago when Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash sat there and tearfully condemned AOC for accusing Trump of running literal concentration camps, which she did.
It wasn't even a comparison.
She wasn't saying, oh, it's the Leica guy.
She was saying he actually has concentration camps.
Blitzer, as a man whose family perished in real concentration camps, must surely have been offended by that, if he was offended by Marjorie Taylor Greene's comments, which were innocuous in comparison.
But no such clip or segment exists.
And we all know it.
And that's why Republicans, though they will never stop playing this game, must stop playing this game.
When the left demands that you condemn your own side for doing the things that they do and saying the things that they say, the correct response is to laugh in their face.
Or ignore them, if you like.
Or, you know what?
Outright defend whatever they want you to condemn, purely out of spite.
That's fine too.
Because you know, really any response, any response, is better than doing as you're told and giving them what they want.
It is not principle.
There's no principle here.
You are cooperating with these disingenuous, dishonest frauds, taking part in the charade, allowing yourself to be used, emboldening them, supporting them implicitly or explicitly, and none of that approaches the realm of principle.
Maybe you do it out of fear, maybe you do it out of stupidity, maybe you do it out of self-preservation, or maybe you do it because you haven't thought it through.
Whatever the motivation, it is not the more virtuous path.
If you're an elected Republican and you work with Marjorie Taylor Greene every day, and she says something you disagree with, You can go and speak to her directly, personally.
I'm not saying you have to agree with and support everything that everyone on your side says and does.
I'm saying that condemnation as a public display, as public ritual, has to stop.
It's the same principle that holds true for public apologies.
I'm against those too.
I'm not saying that nobody should ever apologize ever again.
I'm not against apologizing.
In principle, I'm saying that apologizing to the public in this ritualistic fashion because the mob told you to is never the right thing.
It also will never have the result you're hoping for.
You'll never receive forgiveness through a public apology.
Just as you'll never get any credit for a public condemnation.
So stop.
And grow a backbone.
And smarten up.
Please.
Dear God.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
So big news, the Daily Wire has several open positions for our in-house team in Nashville.
And this week we're highlighting the opening for an accounts payable associate.
This person will be responsible for the day-to-day accounts payable functions in our finance department.
We're looking for someone with at least three years of previous professional accounts payable experience and familiarity with bookkeeping and basic accounting procedures are key to this role.
Our ideal candidate is also highly organized and has a strong attention to detail.
And I would also add, this is just my own thing, Um, that if you do come and work here, um, the garden salsa sun chips in the break room are for me and not for anyone else.
So please leave those alone.
Every time I go in there, they're gone.
That's an, anyway, forget about that.
Uh, this is a full time in office position in Nashville and candidates can apply through dailywire.com slash careers.
All right, as we get to our headlines, maybe the number one headline, this might be big news to you, celebrity gossip.
My wife was out with some friends two nights ago.
She came home and she said that she saw Tom Hanks out here in Nashville eating at a restaurant.
But then I was kind of offended because she's telling me this.
And she wasn't overly impressed, which is good.
But she said, oh, you know, this is the first celebrity that I've seen here in Nashville.
And I said to her, what do you mean?
You see me every day.
And she paused for a second and she stared at me blankly and then burst out laughing in my face.
And then she said, I'm going to tell everyone on Twitter you said that, which she did.
So not the response you hoped for, but that's what it goes.
It's how it goes.
All right, let's go.
Number one, this is from the Hill.
Moderna announced on Tuesday That studies had found that its COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective at stopping infection in adolescents aged 12 to 17, and that it planned on submitting the findings to global regulators in the coming days.
100% effective.
Big news there.
Continuing, this is from Moderna CEO, Stephane Bancel, said in an announcement, quote,
"We're encouraged that the mRNA-1273 was highly effective "at preventing COVID-19 in adolescents.
"It is particularly exciting to see "that Moderna COVID-19 vaccine can prevent the infection.
"We will submit these results to the US FDA."
FDA and regulators globally in early June and request authorization.
According to Moderna, 3,732 participants aged 12 to 17 were involved in the study.
No cases of COVID-19 were observed in any of the vaccinated participants, and no significant safety concerns were identified.
The vaccine was shown to be 93% effective two weeks after the first dose was administered and 100% effective after the second dose, according to the pharmaceutical company.
So they say that no bad health effects were identified.
Of course, this study doesn't include any potential long-term effects one way or another, because you have to wait for the long-term to find that out.
So that isn't really known.
But something to keep in mind here, as we hear about the testing being done with kids, And now the push is really going to begin.
Once all this is officially approved for kids, the push is going to begin to vaccinate kids for this.
And when I say push, I mean, we can expect, I would imagine, mandates, especially if you want your kids to go to school and that sort of thing.
But we have to keep in mind, we're told that the vaccine is 100% effective.
And what does that mean?
It means that these kids were given the vaccine, And then they didn't contract the virus.
But here's another thing.
Most likely, none of those kids would have gotten the virus anyway.
Most likely.
Because do you know what else is nearly 100% effective in preventing COVID infection in kids 12 to 17?
Their immune system.
Their immune system is already almost 100% effective.
Because COVID infections in kids at that age is very rare.
And when it does happen, vast majority of cases, extremely mild.
What we know, this is a statistical fact, kids at that age range are under a greater threat from the flu, both in terms of the likelihood of getting affected and the severity of the illness if they do get infected, than they are from COVID.
That's what we know.
Now, I have to be careful in how I phrase all of this, so that YouTube doesn't come along and just shut down the entire show and take the video down.
But everything I've said so far is statistically correct.
And so, as parents, as these COVID vaccines are rolled out for kids, and we are quote-unquote encouraged to bring our kids in to get the shot, we have to think.
Like, okay, I can inject this substance into my child, to prevent an illness that they are nearly certainly not
going to contract already or I can just let their immune system do its thing. And by
the way, when we talk, keep this in mind too, when we talk about the likelihood or unlikelihood
of kids getting infected by COVID, We're also looking at that's based on, you know, statistics and a time period back when nobody was, was vaccinated and adults weren't vaccinated.
And even then when nobody was vaccinated and everybody was potentially susceptible to the virus, even then kids were hardly getting it now.
Most adults are vaccinated.
And any adult who wants to be vaccinated can be.
So what are the chances now, if all the adults get vaccinated, or if the vast majority of adults are either vaccinated or they're immune because of prior infection, and if even before then, kids were extremely unlikely to get infected by it, what are the chances now that they get infected?
It's even less likely.
It goes from extremely unlikely to even less than extremely unlikely.
So are you gonna bring your kids in to get that shot?
I would like to know what the scientific medical case for that is.
I don't mean, I don't need to hear the hectoring and all of that.
I'm not asking for platitudes and people shouting.
Give me the scientific medical data-driven reason to bring my kids in to get that shot.
Given that their immune system is already nearly 100% effective in preventing the infection.
If you can make that case, I'd like to hear it.
I'm not sure that you can.
All right, number two, this is from the Daily Wire.
It says, earlier this month, two black Penn State University professors reported seeing a noose in a tree behind their house.
They told PSU student newspaper The Daily Collegian that the incident was deeply distressing to them and their family.
Media outlet The Center Daily Times reported that the professors believed the alleged noose was deliberately placed on the tree to harass them.
The College Fix reported that the Patton Township Police Department found the noose and began investigating.
Before that investigation was complete, however, PSU President Eric Barron posted a statement condemning the alleged act of hate and accepting the professors' feelings as truth.
Barron wrote, quote, the incident underscores the importance of our anti-racism work as a university and as a community of scholars.
It also underscores the importance of our town work to build a safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment for all who live here.
When police spoke to the professor's neighbors, they learned the truth.
Okay, so that's the setup.
And just to review, okay, we've got two black university professors, Who see, quote-unquote, a noose in a tree behind them.
What they really saw, by the way, they saw a rope.
They just happened to see a rope.
And the immediate assumption now is that if you're black and you see a rope anywhere, it is a suspected noose.
And someone planted it there as a hate crime.
And so then we had the police investigating and The PSU president condemning the rope?
This is the worst rope.
This rope is hateful and bigoted.
Well, it turns out, after police investigated, that the rope was not a hate crime.
It was part of a swing set that had been attached to the tree.
It was just a swing set.
Which, you know, I don't have... We could probably find a picture of this rope.
I don't have it in front of me.
I'm not sure what it looked like.
But I'm guessing.
First of all, what we know is that if it was part of a swing set, it wasn't an actual noose.
Okay, it may have been a rope with kind of like a loop at the end of it, which is where you would attach the swing, but that's not a noose.
Not every rope that's hanging from something is a noose.
In fact, I go this far.
Almost every rope... You know, there's no way for me to confirm this, but I'll make this statement anyway.
Pretty provocative.
Almost every rope that is currently hanging from something in this country right now is not a noose.
Now you go even further.
There's a high likelihood that none of them are hate crimes.
All of the ropes, probably thousands and thousands of ropes currently hanging from various things for various reasons, and none of them are hate crimes.
Because there are so many practical reasons why human beings hang ropes from things.
One of them is a... So, I gotta wonder, these two college professors, you send your kids to be taught by these people and they've never heard of a swing set in a tree?
They never encountered that in their life?
When they were told about the swing set, they said, what?
What do you mean a swing?
Swing?
What is that?
You're saying that children will sit on this contraption and swing back and forth?
I've never heard of such a thing!
These two poor people, I mean, they've been going to playgrounds their entire lives and thinking that they're witnessing a Klan meeting.
They've never heard of a swing before.
Or the other possibility is that they're not lunatics and they damn well knew that most likely this rope that they saw has a perfectly innocuous explanation like a swing, but they decided to run with it anyway in order to score some victim points.
That's the other possibility.
It's really one of those two.
So either they are absolute lunatic idiots or They're just disingenuous frauds.
To me, those are the two most likely possibilities.
And I say that again, I haven't seen the rope.
I guess every time I see one of these things, I wonder where... We have heard of so many cases of ropes being mistaken for nooses that were supposedly hate crimes.
Including in Bubba Wallace's garage.
Remember, there was a garage door pull.
It's just a rope used to pull open a garage.
And the FBI, what did they send?
I think they sent 15 FBI agents to investigate the rope.
So that we've heard of that, many other cases like that.
And in every case that we hear about, it turns out that the rope had some innocuous purpose, like a swing, a garage door pull, whatever.
There was another case in Cracker Barrel.
It wasn't even a rope, it was just a cord from an antique soldering iron, and it happened to be hanging there, and the assumption was that it was a noose.
So a lot of cases like that, and they all turn out to be fraudulent or hoaxes or misunderstandings, where are the real cases of this?
Does this ever happen in reality?
In fact, the whole idea of a noose As a racist symbol.
Has it ever been a racist symbol?
I don't think it has.
The left just invented this.
It's kind of like the OK sign, which I just did right there, so you know Media Matters is going to be on top of that.
The OK sign.
The left just decided that this is now going to be a symbol of hate.
It never has been.
There's no precedent for that.
They just decided it.
And they did the same thing with the noose.
Yes, now it's true that historically nooses have been used in murderous and racist ways.
That's true.
But going back for thousands of years, ropes and even nooses have had innocuous uses and also sometimes murderous uses or executing people and oftentimes had nothing to do with race at all.
So the idea that it's now exclusively a racist symbol, where does that come from?
It mainly comes from the media.
It's a media invention.
All right, from the Daily Wire, as a reporter, Reading now, it says, as a reporter discussed police reform changes since the death of George Floyd at what's now called George Floyd Square, gunshots could be heard ringing out, leaving the reporter to seek cover.
This is in Minneapolis.
Philip Crowther, an international affiliate reporter for Associated Press GMS, was on scene covering the anniversary of the Floyd arrest when the gunfire interrupted his reporting.
There's just something so appropriate, I guess, about this, given the context, but let's watch the footage now.
Well, look, it's not going to be signed in time, at least according to the timeline that the White House and U.S.
President Joe Biden had.
They wanted this bill of comprehensive police reform to be... Just got to be careful here with some gunshots.
Excuse us, excuse us.
[GUNFIRE]
It sounds like gunshots.
I'll let you know what this is.
These seem to be gunshots.
Get down!
[Gunshots]
We're okay, we're okay.
[Gunshots]
Yeah, so it's just a drive-by shooting at the George Floyd Memorial to commemorate the solemn occasion.
Um...
Nothing to see there.
I think the most disturbing thing, if you watch that footage, and you have to watch it to appreciate it, so you go to Daily Wire or the YouTube channel to watch this, at least to watch this segment of it, you see the reaction from the people standing around.
And they're reacting like this is something that happens every day.
It wasn't the kind of reaction that you would expect.
I saw, I think, one person running.
A bunch of other people are just kind of standing around.
They might as well be yawning.
Almost yawning, saying, another drive-by shooting?
Yeah.
What else?
What else do you expect?
Because why do they act like it happens every day?
Because it does happen every day.
In Minneapolis and in cities across the country.
Why does it happen every day?
Well, a large part because these cities are run by Democrats who have no interest whatsoever in preventing crime or punishing the people who commit crime.
And it also has something to do, we look at the spike in crime, a massive spike over the last year.
Well, where were they?
This was the George Floyd Memorial On the anniversary of his death.
So we are commemorating his death like he's a canonized saint, like he's a war hero.
He's got a memorial right there.
So I wonder, can we draw some connections here?
We celebrate and memorialize criminals, bad people, who, whatever you think about the circumstances around his death, There was nothing honorable about his life, as far as we know.
So we celebrate and honor criminals, and then you end up with more crime.
Could you maybe draw a connection there?
If you romanticize, excuse, and celebrate criminals and crime, is it possible you end up with more of it?
I don't know.
know, something to think about.
All right, going to the Daily Mail, it says Australian basketball star Liz Cambage has taken to social media
to flaunt her body after slamming a coach for making disrespectful comments about her weight.
The WNBA All-Star who plays for the Las Vegas Aces.
I don't have to tell you that, right?
This is Liz Cambage we're talking about.
WNBA All-Star, plays for the Las Vegas Aces.
We all know who this person is.
We're all big fans, right?
Here I am giving you details.
I said Liz Cambage and immediately you thought, oh yeah, plays for the WNBA All-Star, plays for the Las Vegas Aces.
My favorite athlete.
So excuse me for explaining who she is.
I don't mean to insult your intelligence.
I know we all know.
We're all big WNBA fans.
Anyway, the WNBA All-Star hit back at Connecticut Sun head coach Kurt Miller after he encouraged an official to call a foul against her while saying, come on, she's 300 pounds.
The 6'8 All-Star doubled down hours later by sharing a video in the gym showing off her phenomenal figure while listening to a song titled Big Body Bends.
Alright, we don't need to read all this, but we do have a clip of Liz Cambage talking about this.
Anyway, listen to the language that she uses.
So, something went down in today's game.
I don't need to speak on it, because if there's one thing about me, it's that I will never let a man disrespect me.
Ever!
Ever!
Especially a little white one.
So to the coach of Connecticut, I'm sorry, little sir man.
I do not know your name.
But the next time you try to call out a referee, you know, trying to get a call being like, come on, she's 300 pounds.
I'm gonna need you to get it right, baby, because I'm 6'8".
I'm weighing, I just double checked because I love to be correct and get facts.
I'm weighing 235 pounds and I'm very proud of being a big b****.
Big buddy.
Big Ben's baby.
So don't ever try to disrespect me or another woman in the league.
I don't know if that's how like coaches run.
Like you just disrespect, you try to disrespect women like that from the sideline.
And you're so lucky it was during a game.
Where is you?
Good question.
She says she doesn't know who he is.
So anyway to that little man, like whole little, tiny, like where is you?
Where is you?
Good question.
She says she doesn't know who he is.
I don't know his name.
Which is true, I don't know his name either, but all jokes aside, nobody knows who you
are either, Liz.
That's why you're a professional athlete, allegedly, and you make like $45,000 a year, because nobody watches and nobody cares.
Your entire league is basically a welfare program, kept afloat by the NBA.
So, a little bit of humility, I think, would be in order.
Your league has no right to really exist, because nobody cares and nobody watches it, because it's awful.
And the only reason it does exist is because the men's league keeps you afloat.
So, all I'm saying, that's all to say a little bit of humility would be nice.
Is all.
And I don't need to point out, but I will yet again, that she says, I won't let a man disrespect me, especially a little white one.
No need to point out.
That if this was a white WNBA player talking about a black coach and said, I will never let a man disrespect me, especially a little black one.
This is a whole different conversation, right?
That if she had said that, that's headline news everywhere.
She's apologizing.
She's kicked off the league, etc, etc, and so forth and all of that.
We know that's what's going to happen.
But this is just blatant racism from this woman, and nobody cares.
It's allowed.
You're allowed to do that.
Alright.
But those are the rules, as we've established.
Totally different rules, depending on who you are.
And we're supposed to cooperate with that.
Be okay with that.
In fact, as we'll talk about in the Daily Cancellation coming up in just a minute, although that sounds really racist, I'll never let a man disrespect me, especially a little white one.
A little white one.
Sounds really racist.
But it's not, because she can't be racist.
It's impossible.
And we'll talk about that in the Daily Cancellation.
But before we do, let's get to reading the YouTube comments.
Andrew Schnick says, Matt Walsh, why do you assume that the UFOs came from space?
Ever see the movie The Abyss?
Maybe the UFOs are from deep in the oceans.
I have heard this theory.
I like this theory.
The theory to me sounds credible, and by credible I mean it sounds entertaining and fascinating, and I wish it were true.
Where can I... I've heard this before, that maybe the UFOs are coming from the ocean.
So is there any literature I can... I did a little bit of research, and by research I just mean I googled UFOs in the ocean, and I clicked on the first link that popped up, and I believed everything that I read.
But if anyone has more extensive research or literature on the issue of UFOs coming from the ocean, I'd love to hear.
Are we talking about some sort of space portal in the ocean?
Or is this sort of like an Atlantis situation?
Aquaman type of thing?
Where there's a civilization down there?
Like 98% of the ocean is unexplored.
We actually have no idea really what's happening in the oceans, especially at its deepest points.
So who knows?
But I'll tell you right now, I believe it.
Let's see.
Another one says, "Very telling an overweight older man named Trump gets COVID.
He puts on a brave face, acts like he feels much better than he does, and walks on his own steam
to Marine One, to the hospital and back, walks up the balcony and tears his mask off for all to see.
AOC was across the street from where some unarmed idiots made a ruckus for an hour.
She broadcasts her pain and feelings and need for therapy for the next five months.
Ronald Reagan was shot. Can you imagine him whining about his trauma
or how he needs therapy?" Yeah, I do think that's a a very telling comparison.
I hope you're- AOC would tell us women are just as strong as men.
Well, not saying they aren't, but you're not doing yourself any favors in making that case.
Another one says, new strategy, dislike the video when you start, then halfway through, like it.
The algorithm might think, oh, Matt really influenced that person.
Complete 180, double points.
No, no, no.
That's, that's not how the algorithm works.
Please don't, don't do that.
I don't know how, I, you're, you're getting a little too cute, too smart for your own good.
Just hit like, that's all you have to do.
Hit like, hit like, hit it now!
Um, let's see, what else?
And finally, G Smith says, Matt doesn't want women to have facial hair because he's worried that one of them might try to rival his beard.
No, that's not true at all.
I generally am prejudiced against women who grow out their facial hair.
But I would, with all that said, a woman who could manage to have the sort of majestic mane that I do, I would respect that.
If you're gonna go for it, I guess go all the way, is what I'm saying.
Well, after a year of lockdown, prices across the country are rising in tandem with leftist insanity, and you're probably ready to hear some voices of reason make a little sense of it.
So please throw out your mask and join me, Jeremy Boring, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Andrew Klavan tonight for another cigar-insanity-packed episode of Backstage.
By the way, Many people have said to me that they're hoping we talk about aliens tonight on Backstage.
I don't really set the agenda for the Backstage shows, but I will do my damnedest to make sure that that subject is brought up.
I'm in your corner, don't worry.
It streams tonight at 7 o'clock p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central on dailywire.com and on our YouTube channel, Daily Wire.
You know, unlike myself, you've probably never met Candace Owens, I assume, but that might be about to change.
If you sign up as a Daily Wire member with code VIP, you'll get 20% off your new membership and you'll be automatically entered for a chance to win a trip to the Daily Wire studios to see Candace live.
Not only will you be meeting Candace, but you'll be getting an inside look at her studio, our office, and front row seats to watch her live and in action on her talk show, Candace.
So don't wait, go enter to win a Candace VIP pass now at dailywire.com slash subscribe using code VIP.
For 20% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we must confront the perhaps counterintuitive and even disturbing idea that just because someone is writing stuff on a whiteboard, that doesn't mean they're right.
I know this can seem confusing at first.
It's sort of like how we all assume that anyone holding a clipboard must be a trustworthy authority figure.
Anyone in a lab coat must be an expert on science and medicine.
Anyone wearing a yellow vest must have the authority to stop and redirect traffic.
Any man with a beard must be able to defeat a grizzly bear in close quarters combat.
That last one is actually true, but the rest are often incorrect assumptions.
As evidenced by the target of our cancellation today.
This is a man who goes by the handle JollyGoodGinger.
And here he is, in a recent viral video, standing in front of a whiteboard, explaining why white people can never be the victims of racism.
And he is white himself, we must acknowledge.
Lots of people find this kind of reasoning convincing.
I'm not as convinced, but let's give it a listen.
This is a question I get asked a lot.
Can white people experience racism in America?
First, let's understand the word racism.
It ends with "-ism."
Much like capitalism, the same "-ism."
Communism, the same "-ism."
Socialism, the same "-ism."
So what does that ism mean?
Ism means a system put in place by those in power centered around a specific set of ideas.
For example, capitalism, a system put in place by those in power centered around capitalist ideas.
Communism is a system put in place by those in power centered around communist ideas.
Socialism is a system put in place by those in power centered around socialist ideas.
So what is racism?
It's a system put in place by those in power centered around racist ideas.
OK, let's pause there just for a moment.
Ism means a system put in place by those in power, he says.
Huh.
Well, maybe he's he's right.
I mean, he did give us like four examples.
But then what about, I don't know, transgenderism?
Is transgenderism a system put in place by those in power?
Well, come to think of it, it sort of is.
But what about existentialism?
Romanticism?
Hypothyroidism?
Is a person's dysfunctional thyroid gland really a system put in place by those in power?
What about lesbianism?
Narcissism?
Romanticism?
Surrealism?
Witticism?
Fatalism?
Eroticism?
Masochism?
Hypnotism?
Deism?
Atheism?
It turns out there are literally hundreds of ism words.
And the vast majority of them don't fit with the definition that the Jolly Ginger has provided.
I never thought I'd see the day when a ginger would prove himself untrustworthy.
I'm just kidding.
We see those all the time.
Never trust them.
As it turns out, the suffix "-ism does not mean a system put in place by those in power.
It can mean that.
That could be one potential usage for the term, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.
What ism actually signifies is a system or theory or principle or process or action.
So then what is racism?
Well, racism is a theory that one race is inferior to your own.
It's also a principle, a bad one, but a principle.
It's even an action.
Racism can be a lot of things and manifest itself in a lot of ways.
And white people can certainly be the victims of it.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Jolly Ginger has more to say.
Let's keep listening.
So then, can white people experience racism?
What you're saying is when somebody says to you, Cracker, honky, I don't trust white people, colonizer, white devil, that you're experiencing racism.
Well, you're not.
Let me explain.
What you're experiencing is called prejudice.
Prejudice is when someone has an idea about you based purely on the way you look.
The reason that's not racism is this.
The black community is incarcerated at a rate three times higher than white people for the same crime.
Are shot by the police at a rate three times higher than white people.
A traditional black name on a resume will receive a callback five times less commonly than a traditional white name.
White people are not victims of racial profiling, redlining, gentrification.
You see, the system targeting marginalized communities is racism.
So even though a white person may experience prejudice, they'll never have to worry about being targeted by the entire system.
And that's what racism is.
And racism is much worse than prejudice.
That was all a bunch of stupid bullcrap.
Let me explain.
I turn to my own whiteboard now, but I don't have one, and besides, frankly, his choice of a whiteboard instead of a blackboard is pretty racist in and of itself.
He says that the reason a racist comment against white people isn't racist is because black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than white people.
This is what we call a non-sequitur.
I would ask him to put that on the board, but I doubt he can spell it.
It's hard to even debunk the argument, or engage with it, because it simply makes no sense.
It would be like if I slapped you in the face, and you said, hey, you slapped me in the face, and I said, no I didn't, my dog died last Tuesday.
The fact that my dog died in no way proves that I didn't slap you in the face.
It also doesn't justify it, as you personally were not the one who killed my dog.
Is it true that black people are incarcerated at a higher rate?
Yes.
It's also true that they commit crimes at a higher rate statistically.
So to prove that the higher incarceration rate is the result of racism, you'd have to prove that actually whites commit the same amount of crime, or more crime, and are let off the hook.
Or else that black people are, in the majority of cases, incarcerated for things they didn't do.
Now if you could prove that, Then you'd have a case that that's an example of systemic racism.
And if you can prove it, go ahead, but you'll need a lot more than a dry erase marker and a whiteboard to do it.
And anyway, all that aside, none of that has anything to do with the definition of racism.
He's also wrong about white people never experiencing systemic prejudice.
They do all the time.
Affirmative action is one obvious and irrefutable example.
That is a system put in place by those in power Which is directly and explicitly prejudice against white people, especially white males.
No denying it.
By his definition, that's systemic racism.
But again, all that's really beside the point.
Racism is not distinct from prejudice.
These aren't two different things.
Racism is but one form of prejudice.
Saying, that's not racism, it's prejudice, is like saying, that's not an elephant, it's a mammal.
Another non sequitur.
Racism in reality is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
That's racism.
The WNBA player talking about that little white one, that's racism.
Okay, that's what racism is.
That's always been racism.
That's what the words always meant.
Jolly Ginger here is going with a different definition.
He's using the racism is prejudice plus power formulation, which you've probably heard before, and it's the basis for critical race theory.
The problem with that definition is that first of all, it assumes wrongly that black people have no power, an utterly ridiculous claim in a country that just elected a black president twice.
But more importantly, the definition is straightforwardly false.
Do you know where it comes from?
Well, we know who it comes from.
It comes from a specific person.
It was made up by a sociologist named Patricia Beidall in the 1970s.
She came along and decided that racism would mean this other thing now.
And people like Jolly Ginger have decided that Patricia Beidall is the sole and unquestioned authority on this subject.
So when the Jolly Ginger and his ilk give this definition, what they should say is not, you know, racism is Power plus prejudice.
What I should say is, you know, Patricia Beidal says racism is power plus prejudice.
To which we can respond, who the hell is she?
And who cares what she says?
That's exactly like if I said that the new definition of cold is the condition of being warm.
And you asked me to explain how I arrived at that conclusion, and I said, well, this guy Bill Jenkins told me.
Who's Bill Jenkins?
Why should his opinion matter?
Who imbued Bill Jenkins with the godlike powers to redefine entire concepts with the flick of his magic wand?
Well, it doesn't matter.
Bill Jenkins decided this, and now that's it.
Just as Patricia decided that black people can't be racist, and so that means black people can't be racist.
This is all quite nonsensical, of course.
It's the very definition of ad hoc reasoning.
Ad hoc reasoning is when an answer, solution, definition, or argument is invented out of the blue in order to achieve some particular end or to justify some specific claim.
Now, the great thing about the ad hoc approach is that you can keep changing it.
You keep adjusting it as your rhetorical or ideological needs require, which is what these people do.
They keep kind of, you know, tinkering with the definition of racism with the specific Aim of making sure that whatever happens, no black person can be guilty of it, and only white people can be guilty of it.
That's ad hoc.
That's what it means.
At least that's what ad hoc used to mean, but I guess we'll have to check with Patricia Beidal to see if it still means that, because she's the one who decides these things.
This, of course, is the leftist MO, to try and win arguments by summarily changing what words mean.
The change is never justified or explained, it's simply asserted.
And we're all meant to be quiet and go along with it.
Unfortunately, I'm not that cooperative.
So I must still insist that racism means what it means, and has always meant, regardless of what some sociologist and some red-headed guy with a whiteboard have to say.
And that is why our Jolly Ginger friend today is sadly cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
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.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, on the one-year commemoration of George Floyd's death, more black people are dying, and not at the hands of the cops, but the media are super happy at all of the racial progress.
