Today on the Matt Walsh Show, USA Today commits the most egregious form of Orwellian speech manipulation that we’ve seen. You have to hear this to believe it. That’s coming up. Also Five Headlines including a new study which seems to show that mask mandates did absolutely nothing to slow the spread of COVID. Who would have thought? And a white journalist is put on the spot in an interview when he’s asked what he likes about being white. It’s an interesting exchange, we’ll play that today. Also, a new proposal from Maxine Waters to give down payment assistance to Americans to help them buy homes. But, of course, not all Americans will get help. Especially not white Americans.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, USA Today commits the most egregious form of Orwellian speech manipulation that I think maybe we've seen yet.
You have to hear it to believe it, and we'll talk about that in a second.
Also, five headlines including a new study which seems to show that mask mandates did absolutely nothing to slow the spread of COVID.
Who would have thought?
And a white journalist is put on the spot in an interview when he's asked, What he likes about being white.
It's an interesting exchange.
We'll play that today.
Also, a new proposal from Maxine Waters to give down payment assistance to Americans to help them buy their first homes.
But of course, not all Americans will get help, especially not white Americans.
We'll talk about that and much more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
She would be a household name if we lived in a country and a culture where strong and brave women were actually celebrated.
We're told, of course, that such women are celebrated.
We're instructed to celebrate them.
But it turns out that there's only a very specific type of female bravery that we're supposed to recognize and honor.
In fact, according to our cultural overlords, The most honorable act of female bravery is that which is committed by males.
Trans women, quote-unquote, are the most acclaimed sort of women in the country today, and they aren't really women at all.
Real women take a backseat, and real women who oppose the intrusion of so-called trans women, quote-unquote, aren't simply sent to the back, they're kicked off of the bus entirely.
That's been the case for Chelsea Mitchell, who, along with three other female athletes, is suing the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for allowing males to compete against them.
You may have heard of this case.
Almost everyone in the country today would claim to stand for the rights of women, right?
Everybody would say that.
But few have had the courage to remain standing when push really comes to shove.
Mitchell and her fellow plaintiffs are among the few who are actually standing up for women.
And they have all of our cultural institutions, especially the media, stacked against them.
That point was made abundantly clear this week after Mitchell wrote an op-ed for USA Today
where she's making her case, making her case against males
competing against females in sports.
Now, the fact that USA Today would even publish that article in the first place
may seem like an encouraging sign.
But that encouraging sign quickly turned creepy and Orwellian.
Before we get there, let's read some of what Mitchell wrote in her editorial.
Or I should say, this was her original editorial as it first appeared.
This is what she says.
Quote.
It's February 2020.
I'm crouched at the starting line of the high school girls 55 meter indoor race.
This should be one of the best days of my life.
I'm running in the state championship and I'm ranked the fastest high school female in the 55 meter dash in the state.
I should be feeling confident.
I should know that I have a strong shot at winning.
Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance might not be enough simply because there's a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage, a male body.
I won that race, and I'm grateful.
But time after time, I have lost.
I've lost four Women's State Championship titles, two All-New England awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to male runners.
I was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two male runners.
With every loss, it gets harder and harder to try again.
That's a devastating experience.
It tells me that I'm not good enough.
That my body isn't good enough.
No matter how hard I work, I'm unlikely to succeed because I'm a woman.
That experience is why three of my fellow female athletes and I filed a lawsuit last year with Alliance Defending Freedom Against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference because girls and women shouldn't be stripped of their right to fair competition.
Okay, now, everything that she's written here so far is factually correct, morally correct, inarguable, I would say.
She's a woman.
She was forced to compete against people who are not women.
They had unfair advantages because of their male bodies.
Through those unfair advantages, she was robbed of the achievements that she had earned.
This is an utterly unassailable and undeniable point.
She also describes, and I want to read this because she talks about how bad the situation has gotten.
It's actually worse than I even realized.
She says, quote, the CIAC allows biological males to compete in girls' and women's sports.
As a result, two males began racing in girls' track in 2017.
In the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone, these males took 15 Women's State Track Championship titles, titles held in 2016 by nine different girls, and more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher-level competitions that belong to female track athletes.
That's because males have massive physical advantages.
Their bodies are simply bigger and stronger on average than female bodies.
It's obvious to every single girl on the track.
Alright, 15 titles.
Two males took 15 titles that before had been split between nine different girls.
And these are males who, we should remember, Wouldn't have even made it onto the track in a championship meet against other males.
These were mediocre, unimpressive male athletes who couldn't hack it against the boys, and yet they dominated against the girls.
And by the way, we can't see inside their minds.
We don't know their motivation.
But I'm gonna guess, I'm gonna speculate, that this is not a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence that they found that they were mediocre and they couldn't really compete against the boys, and then they discover their female identity.
What do you know?
What a fortunate coincidence.
Can't compete against the guys, turns out I'm a girl!
Well, here we go.
I don't know, but I'm gonna say, probably not a coincidence.
And why do they have that advantage?
Well, because the male body confers enormous advantages in athletic competitions against females with female bodies, which are the only kinds of females that exist.
Chelsea Mitchell's point is that no matter how these boys identify, no matter how they feel, no matter their perception of themselves, the biological facts remain.
And all that matters in a track meet are the facts, especially the biological facts, the physical facts.
That's one of the great things about running as a sport.
I ran track when I was in high school.
And one of the things I like about it is that it's mano-a-mano, very, very simple.
Can I get to the finish line before you?
That's all it comes down to.
All that matters are the physical facts.
Am I stronger than you?
Am I faster?
Do I have more endurance?
And we're going to find out because whoever crosses the finish line first, that's the answer.
What doesn't really matter are your feelings.
So if you have a biological advantage over somebody else on the track, that advantage is not offset by your feelings or your self-perception.
And that's the case that Mitchell makes, or made anyway, in USA Today.
That was until trans activists read her piece and, realizing that they could make no intellectual argument against it, resorted to their favorite tactic, which is silencing the opposition.
And they especially enjoy silencing women.
I mean, no group in America more aggressively silences women than trans activists.
It's not even close.
But if they want to silence women, they can't do that without the acquiescence of cowards in positions of power.
So they complained that the article hurt their feelings.
And USA Today, with little resistance on their part or pushback, summarily changed the article after publication and without notifying the author that they were doing it.
They just changed it in order to remove all, quote, hurtful language from it.
Now, as you recall, let's go back again.
Read this one little paragraph again.
In the original article, as written by Chelsea Mitchell, which was originally published in USA Today, this is what it said.
Again, quote, "Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done
to maximize my performance might not be enough simply because there's a runner on the line
with an enormous physical advantage, a male body."
Remember that?
Okay.
After USA Today made post-publication editorial changes to appease radical trans activists, it now says, instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance might not be enough simply because there's a transgender runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage.
You spot the difference?
Kind of hard to miss.
They remove the word male.
Whereas before, she says that the runner had the advantage of a male body, now it simply says that the transgender runner had an advantage.
What kind of advantage?
Well, who knows?
Maybe he was wearing more comfortable socks that day.
Maybe she ate a cheeseburger before the race and he didn't.
All mention of the specific type of advantage has been erased.
Indeed, USA Today removed the word male from the entire article.
And didn't even acknowledge that they'd done it, aside from an editor's note apologizing for their hurtful language.
And in this case, the hurtful language, again, was scientifically correct language.
And it was also the entire point of the article.
Mitchell's original piece says the word male ten times.
Every other sentence practically contains the word male because that's the entire point and premise.
There is no argument against trans runners in female sports except for the fact that they're male.
That's it.
There's no other argument.
That's the only one and it's all you need.
In fact, the argument has nothing to do with the fact that they're trans.
That's irrelevant.
Trans is self-perception.
Their self-perception is irrelevant.
The whole point, the only point, the point is that they are male.
USA Today decided that it's happy to publish her argument as long as her argument doesn't contain her actual argument.
This is quite clearly, to my mind, one of the most egregious and outlandish cases of media bias and Orwellian speech manipulation that we've yet seen.
And it really matters.
This is more than just some dumb thing that we can roll our eyes about and say, oh, there's the silly mainstream media up to its old tricks again.
No, this is the kind of thing that influences people.
The goal is pretty clear.
It's to make it seem as though the people who are opposed to males and female sports or female locker rooms are really just opposed to trans people.
And we hear this kind of, um, This is the way the media presents it all the time.
The only difference is that usually they don't make a change post-publication.
In most cases, the original thing they publish is going to be framed exactly like the edited version of Chelsea Mitchell's piece, where they say things like, and you see all kinds of headlines like this, that, you know, conservatives are opposed to trans people in sports, or there's a bill being passed in Texas or wherever that will ban trans people from sports.
That's not the case.
That's not the case at all.
It's not about trans.
The average oblivious American who reads that, okay, they're gonna read that and think, well, what's the problem here?
Who cares if the other runner is trans?
When in reality, it's Chelsea Mitchell who doesn't care if they're trans.
They can identify as however they want.
It's the biological reality that matters.
And the goal of the left, with a big assist from the media, is to erase that biological reality.
Now, in truth, they can never actually erase a reality.
Biology will remain biology, no matter what anyone says about it or feels in relation to it, but they can create a society that fundamentally fails to recognize or is hostile to reality.
And unfortunately, towards that end, they are succeeding.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, as we just, I think, made clear in the opening there, the country seems to be getting crazier and crazier by the
day.
And that's certainly not helped by the fact that all of our cultural institutions and most powerful companies are against us as conservatives in the culture.
And that's why one thing we can do to reclaim the culture is when we find companies that are on our side, we should support them and join them.
And that's why you got to try out Charity Mobile.
Charity Mobile is the pro-life phone company.
5% of your monthly plan price goes to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice.
And what that means is that whenever you pay your bill, you're also helping to build a culture of life in America.
By supporting a ProLife phone company, you can turn everyday living into effortless giving.
On top of that, it's an awesome service.
And listen, new activations and eligible accounts get a free cell phone with free activation and free
shipping.
There's no contracts, there's no termination fees, there's no risk with a 30-day guarantee.
You also have live customer service, which I think is great,
based right here in the USA whenever you need them.
So you have to go to Charity Mobile.
Call them at 1-877-474-3662.
You can also chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
New, lower monthly plan prices and a new plan with a higher data limit is available.
Existing customers automatically get the newer, lower plan prices.
No need to contact them and ask for them.
Again, charitymobile.com.
Well, I don't know if you tuned in to Backstage last night.
We had our monthly Backstage show, and fortunately, I think for the first hour, it was a lot of boring stuff about Things happening on the globe, on the Earth.
Who cares about that?
All that anyone really cares about is what's happening in outer space.
We want to talk about the space aliens.
So finally, we did talk about the space aliens.
If you didn't watch, you know what?
If you didn't watch the episode, I would say you don't even really need to watch it.
Because what I can tell you is that many people are saying, many people are saying that I utterly demolished everybody else on the subject of aliens.
And I was outnumbered.
Clavin, turns out, he's sort of alien-curious.
He's alien-questioning.
He's open to it.
Alien-fluid, maybe.
But Ben, Jeremy, Michael, very anti-alien.
And so I was really there.
And the other thing that many people are saying, and who's saying this?
Again, many people.
The other thing many people are saying is that They were stunned, frankly, by my bravery as a marginalized identity, as an alien-believing American.
ABA, ABBA, is what we call ourselves, I've decided.
So as the only ABBA on the stage of marginalized identity in an unsafe environment.
But I did.
I wiped the floor.
I think I basically proved Not only that aliens exist in the universe, but they are visiting Earth.
And as I said, you don't need to even watch it.
I would say, don't watch it, because there's no point.
Just take my word for it.
Actually, after the show concluded, and I shouldn't even be talking about this, but the other three, Ben, Jeremy, and Michael, they were leaving in tears, and they were saying that they were afraid that I'd embarrass them Because my arguments were so good in comparison to their weak arguments.
And so it was a pretty emotional moment.
No need to confirm any of what I'm saying right now.
Just trust me on this.
All right.
And let's go.
Number one, from Town Hall.
This should be breaking news, even though it's not a surprise, perhaps, to many of us.
It says, new findings reported Tuesday in a University of Louisville study challenge what has been the prevailing belief that mask mandates are necessary to slow the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus.
The study notes that 80% of U.S.
states mandated masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, and while mandates induced greater mask compliance, they didn't predict lower growth rates when community spread was low or high.
Among other things, the study, conducted using data from the CDC covering multiple seasons, reports that mask mandates and use are not associated with lower COVID spread among U.S.
states.
Quote, our findings do not support the hypothesis that transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use.
Researchers stated that masks may promote social cohesion as rallying symbols during a pandemic, but risk compensation can also occur because... Okay, let me read here from... Quoting from the actual study.
Now, it says prolonged mask use Around four hours a day.
Promotes facial alkalinization.
And I certainly know what that means.
And inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk.
British clinicians have reported masks to increase headaches and sweating and decrease cognitive precision.
Survey bias notwithstanding, these are associated with medical errors.
By obscuring nonverbal communication, masks interfere with social learning in children.
Likewise, masks can distort verbal speech and remove visual cues to the detriment of individuals with hearing loss.
And then it goes on from there.
In summary, okay, I'll continue reading a little bit.
Mask mandates and use were poor predictors of COVID-19 spread in U.S.
states.
Case growth was independent of mandates at low and high rates of community spread.
And mask use did not predict case growth during the summer or fall winter waves.
Strengths of our study include using two mask metrics to evaluate association with COVID-19 growth rates, et cetera, and so forth.
This is what the study says.
This is what the research says.
Who knows, maybe YouTube will still ban this episode because I'm just reading what the study says.
But this is what I keep going back to.
It's good to get the scientific data, and I'm glad that finally we're getting some studies and we're getting some science on some of these issues.
But at the same time, this is common sense.
This was common sense to a lot of us.
Things like forcing people to wear masks all day, for hours at a time.
Most of us, to begin with, we knew that medical masks were never designed or never intended for that kind of use, to be an everyday accessory that you just put on your face all day and walk around everywhere with.
Just as a common sense judgment, before looking at any data, People with common sense should know that there are going to be problems there.
Yeah, you're going to have dehydration.
It's going to make you hotter.
It doesn't seem very sanitary.
You have germs and sweat and everything.
And for kids, taking aside even all the physical problems, it seems there are psychological and emotional problems, especially for children, forcing them to wear masks all the time.
Depriving them of the ability to see the faces of other people.
It creates social problems even among adults.
You try to communicate with people and you can't even see their faces.
And all the while, you know, what we're being told is that putting this piece of cloth on your face is going to provide you Significant protection against this microscopic virus.
I don't know.
Again, common sense?
There would seem to be some serious questions that you might ask about that.
But you weren't allowed to ask the questions.
You're not allowed to make common sense judgments.
You have to wait until the experts tell you.
Now with the masking thing, we know with the Wuhan lab in China, finally the experts and the media, who all of them consider themselves to be experts, they're finally telling us that, oh, it's okay, it's okay now.
You're allowed to draw this connection.
You're allowed to speculate about what seems like the very real and likely possibility that this came from a lab in China.
You're allowed to do that.
For the last year, you weren't allowed to do that because we hadn't told you yet that you're allowed to have that opinion.
But now we've decided that you're allowed to have that opinion.
Will we get to that point with masks?
I don't know.
I kind of, in my head, I kind of go back and forth on this.
Are masks here to stay, at least in some places in America, forever?
That seems very likely, very possible.
Or, you know, it's also just as possible, I suppose, that the media, who knows, they could do it tomorrow or next month.
They could just decide that, oh, you know what, never mind, you're not supposed to wear masks anymore.
And in fact, they could decide all of a sudden that not only are you not supposed to wear them, but if you do wear them, you're a maniac, you're anti-science and all of this.
But it's all up to them.
They decide and we follow along.
The main thing, though, the main lesson is do not use your own brain.
Don't try to sort through these things on your own.
Don't look at the data and draw your own conclusions.
Don't listen to what they're saying and try to point to holes in their logic.
Don't do any of that.
Just be a good and cooperative little boy or girl.
Or whatever.
And do as you're told.
All right, number two, journalist Chris Ruffo, who's been on the Critical Race Theory beat for last year or two, and has done, I think, easily one of the most important journalists in America.
Now, that's kind of a low bar, because there aren't very many journalists at all that are doing real journalism, but he's one of the ones doing real journalism, especially when it comes to Critical Race Theory.
He was invited on A show with Mark Lamont Hill. I'm not sure what show this
is. Black News Tonight.
Okay, that's the name of the show on I don't know what network. But anyway, at the end of
the interview there's what I think is a really interesting exchange. So let's just start watching
this. And if I were to say to you right now, Christopher, what do you like about being white?
What would you say? I don't know.
Again, it's such an amorphous term.
It's like a census term or a... But can you indulge me?
Indulge me for one... We're running out of time.
Indulge me for a minute.
I understand you see it as all these things, but you surely recognize that the world sees you as white.
You know the world reads you as white.
And if you were to ask me some things I like about being black, I could talk about cultural norms, I could talk about tradition, I could talk about the kind of commonalities I feel around the diaspora.
If I were to ask you, particularly if you're saying whiteness is a thing that is being constructed as negative and shouldn't be, Name something positive that you like about being white.
Well sure, I'll answer with a thing.
There's a lot of documents that are floating around public schools that say things like timeliness, showing up on time is a white supremacist value or a white value, white dominant value.
Things like rationality, things like the enlightenment, things like, you know, objectivity.
And these are very strange things to be ascribed to a racial identity.
My view is that these are actually should be ascribed to every individual human being, every individual human being, regardless of whatever racial category we impose on them.
Christopher, that doesn't answer the question, no.
You're telling me you're making strawmen about things that are ascribed to whiteness that you think are wrongfully ascribed to whiteness.
I'm saying if whiteness isn't a negative thing, and there's something that you actually, and that whiteness actually shouldn't be constructed as all negative, name something positive about being, that you believe is positive about being white.
Again, I don't buy into the framework that the world can be reduced into these metaphysical categories of whiteness and blackness.
I think that's wrong.
I think we should look at people as individuals.
I think we should celebrate different people's accomplishments.
And again, I think the idea you mentioned, Ignatieff.
Ignatieff says the goal is to, quote, abolish the white race.
In any other context, this would be interpreted as a near-genocidal slur.
I don't buy into it.
The reason I'm not going to answer your question is I reject that categorization.
I think of myself as an individual human being with my own capabilities, and I would hope that we could both judge each other as individuals and come to common values on that basis.
Okay, so it seems like a lot of people on the right, this video is being shared yesterday, kind of went viral.
In fact, Mark Lamont Hill is quite proud of this exchange, and he's the one who originally put it on Twitter.
I don't know if very many people would have seen it, had he not.
And a lot of people on the right were upset about the question, and were saying that it's kind of a racist question, which it is, because of what's being implied.
Kind of in a vacuum, just saying, well, what do you like about being white?
Not necessarily a racist question, but the implication, the insinuation from Mark Lamont Hill is that it's bad to be white.
So, you could almost, it's, what he was really asking is, what could you possibly like about being white?
Which is a racist question.
But, it's also a smart strategy.
It's a smart tactic.
And it's the kind of thing you're going to step into the ring with someone like, Like, Hill, you have to be prepared for that.
And I thought Chris Ruffo handled it well.
I thought he handled it really well.
I'm not saying he wasn't prepared.
But it is a clever trick from Marc Lamont Hill.
Because what's the point?
Well, the point is, if you refuse to answer what you like about being white, then Hill can say you've proved his point.
That, well, you're white, you can't even say anything you like about being white.
Apparently being white's a bad thing.
But if you answer the question and say, well here's, I'll give you a list, here's 20 things I love about being white, now you're a white supremacist.
And people, and Hill knows that this is what would happen.
People are going to come in, they'll take the question out, but that, because context doesn't matter, we know that.
Especially with the racial, the race hustlers.
Context never matters, whether it's a police shooting or anything else.
So it creates almost like this mean template for people to come in, take the question aside, get rid of all the context, and then take just that 20-second clip, which starts with you saying, what I like about being white is XYZ, and then that lives forever in infamy on the internet as proof that you're a white supremacist.
So that's the trick.
That's the ploy.
It's a clever one.
It's pretty despicable, but it's also clever as just a strategy.
I think what Chris Ruffeau is doing there, he's rejecting the framework.
He's saying, I'm not going to play that game with you.
Perfectly good way of doing it.
One other strategy, though, could be to turn it around, if you can.
Put the other guy on the defensive.
And you could say to Mark Lamont Hill, why are you asking me that question?
That's a really strange question to ask.
Can you name anything good about being white?
Are you assuming that there's nothing good about being white?
White is who I am.
Part of my identity.
It's part of who I am.
Are you saying there's nothing good about that part of my identity?
Can you name anything good about being white?
I would like to see how he would handle that.
Because maybe he could list a few things.
If he lists a couple of positive things, which he probably wouldn't, then you could say, okay, yeah, that's what I like about being white, too.
But he probably wouldn't be able to do that.
He wouldn't be willing to.
And so now you've put him in a position where he's saying, I don't see anything good about being white.
Which, of course, is incredibly racist.
So all you're doing is proving that he's a racist.
That he can't see anything good.
That's why he's asking the question.
Again, what's implied and not said is, what could you possibly like about being white?
So that's another way of doing it, is to flip it around.
Or, you know, a third option.
Mark Lamont Hill said, if you ask me what I like about being black, I would say cultural norms, tradition, heritage.
Well, you could easily say, okay, well, that's what I like about being white.
Or, I mean, unless you're going to tell me that only white people aren't allowed to like those things about themselves.
Are you saying that you're allowed to like culture, tradition, your heritage as a person?
Feeling proud of your ancestors and where you came from?
Are you saying that you're allowed to be proud of that?
And happy about that?
And like that?
And I'm not?
So there's a number of different ways to go about it.
I think that Rufo handled it pretty well.
But you just know, of course it's not an honest question.
This is not an attempt to really understand at all.
This is an attempt to trap.
And you know that going in.
Alright, um... Number three... Okay, I gotta read.
This is from the Sunday Express.
I hate to go back to UFOs.
Actually, I don't.
But I just want to read this to you very briefly.
It says... I don't even know what the Sunday Express is.
Let's just assume they're a reputable news source.
The U.S.
Navy has picked up sonar data showing mysterious fast-moving objects underwater that cannot be explained by experts or current technology.
Washington examiners Tom Rogan said the U.S.
Navy has the data to prove the bizarre encounters.
Some of these encounters could be included in the U.S.
government task force, which is preparing to brief Congress on its UFO findings next month.
This comes amid a flurry of footage showing bizarre encounters between US pilots and Navy officers and unexplainable objects.
So now we've got unidentified flying objects, but that's not this because they're underwater.
So I guess unidentified swimming objects, the USO, well, that acronym is already taken, but now you have objects underwater as well that are unexplained.
And, you know, we do know very little about Our oceans, or what's happening down there.
Could there be civilizations living under the ocean?
It's possible.
That's probably not the case at all.
So I'm not quite ready to come out as a believer in Aquaman.
But I will say, and I think someone brought this up in the YouTube comments yesterday, the thing about civilizations under the ocean.
You talk about the oceans, and we live on the Earth alongside the ocean, and yet we know very little about it.
So much of it is unexplored.
That probably doesn't mean that there's Atlantis down there somewhere, but it's fascinating to think about just how little we know.
And that explains, if anyone's wondering, that is my personal fascination with UFOs and aliens and everything, just because we know so little about Outer space.
You could fill a thimble, really, with what we know about it, in comparison to how vast of an expanse it actually is.
I mean, it's essentially infinite, for all intents and purposes.
And that, to me, is just fascinating, to think of the possibilities.
And I don't understand how people could fail to be fascinated by that, or bored by the discussion.
All right, number four.
This photo's been floating around for a couple of days.
I just want to show this to you.
The website Pop Crave shared a photo of Ellen Page, now Elliot Page.
And here's the picture, if you haven't seen.
There's Elliot Page, shirtless, breasts removed.
There's been some speculation that there are some ab implants going on there.
I think there might be something to that speculation, but putting that aside, I don't know.
You see a photo like this, we're supposed to applaud this.
But it's actually intensely sad and disturbing.
This is a person that has totally rejected themselves.
This is self-mutilation.
Applauding a picture like this, it is no different from seeing an emaciated anorexic and applauding that.
And say, oh, doesn't she look fantastic?
She looks beautiful.
She's, uh, she looks exactly how she wants to look.
She's living her truth, living out her identity.
Yeah.
She's destroying her body, but, uh, it's a beautiful thing.
In fact, I don't have to, that's not even really a hypothetical.
We're already doing that with not with maybe not anorexics, but people who are morbidly obese.
It's the same kind of thing.
We see a morbidly obese person destroying themselves.
And we're supposed to applaud it, and it's the same sort of thing here.
A woman who has chopped off parts of her body, foreclosed entire biological functions permanently, and we're meant to applaud that.
That I certainly could never do.
I find it sad, and I'm moved with pity, honestly, when I see photos like that.
I don't understand how you could have any other reaction.
All right, finally, number five.
I mentioned this briefly a few days ago.
I never got to it, but this is from BuzzFeed.
It says, in a national effort to get through to horny but vaccine-hesitant Americans, the White House announced Friday that it is joining forces with dating apps to encourage people to get their COVID-19 vaccines so that they can go forth and F-freely this summer.
Vaccinated users on Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, and Badoo.
I haven't even heard of most of these apps.
article.
I want to talk about where what's happened with American journalism.
There you go.
Vaccinated users on Tinder, Hinge, Bumble and Badoo.
I haven't even heard of most of these apps.
Well, Tinder I know about Bumble, Hinge.
They'll have access to some premium features for free.
OkCupid, Chizpa, BLK and Match are giving out a free boost to those who've been vaccinated
so that their profiles are more likely to be seen first.
Money A Fish is also offering free credits to vaccinated members for its live streaming
feature.
And so the idea is to get people.
A lot of these, I guess, are not so much apps people use to find other individuals to have
relationships with, but more just hook up apps.
I guess, and that's really the good news here, is that when you're hooking up with random strangers that you meet on an app, and you just learned their name an hour ago, and already you're in bed with them, yeah, the good thing is that the only disease Or negative outcome you ever had to worry about was COVID.
And so now, I guess we're hearing from the White House, just get that COVID vaccine, throw caution to the wind again.
What could possibly go wrong?
Except for everything, as we've seen in society over the last several decades.
All right, let's move now to reading the YouTube comments.
Major Tom Fisher says, holy crap, I think I might actually be slightly, moderately, maybe intrigued a tiny bit by the WNBA if there are six foot, eight inch women in it.
Where the heck do you find women that tall?
Yeah, that is pretty fascinating in a way, but the thing is they still can't dunk, which is kind of sad.
Unidentified, unidentifiable reviewer says Matt Walsh react to the Menendez brothers trial case.
It's all over TikTok.
I see this a lot in the comments where people are trying to get me to talk about something.
And, uh, and so they, they always mention as a qualifier, Oh, you know, they're talking about this on TikTok.
Because they know my TikTok obsession.
So if you want to get me to talk about it, all you have to do is mention that the cool kids are talking about it on TikTok.
And it worked here, too.
I don't know a lot.
I'm vaguely aware there's something going on with this, and there's some sort of internet trend.
So I guess I really shouldn't be talking about it at all, because I know almost nothing about it.
I do know the Menendez brothers, they were 30 years ago or something, it was a famous case of these brothers, who I think were both teenagers at the time, maybe one was in his early 20s, and they killed their parents in a horrific and brutal crime, including I think they shot their mother multiple times with like a shotgun.
And they went to jail forever, no possibility of parole.
And what we were told by prosecutors is that they had done this in order to collect life insurance from their parents, because their parents were really wealthy.
So this is all a plot to make money off their parents.
And now, sort of randomly, two or three decades later, I think people on TikTok are kind of reopening this case, at least online, in their own way, and saying that these brothers should be freed from prison.
Not because they were innocent, but because they claim that the Menendez brothers were being sexually abused, and so that this was them sort of in an act of self-defense.
After years of abuse, they just had enough of it.
I don't know if that's true or not.
I don't know anything about it.
If it were true, let's just say, I mean hypothetically, and I have no idea if this is the case here.
If it were true, I'm talking in a hypothetical case, you've got kids who were sexually abused by their parents for years.
And finally, after years of this, they killed their parents.
Yes, I would not give someone in that case life in prison without parole.
I'd be looking at more of like a manslaughter charge or something.
Is that the case here?
I have no clue at all.
So that is my analysis.
I hope it lived up to your expectations.
I'm sure that it didn't.
And finally, another comment says, the Holocaust isn't even the greatest atrocity of the 20th century.
Mao's Cultural Revolution and Stalin's purges slash gulags come to mind.
Throughout history, there have been many events worse than the Holocaust.
Genghis Khan and his crew were responsible for so many deaths that the global temperature dropped.
You get to a certain level of atrocity and there's no point in ranking them.
People do this sometimes.
Who was the greater villain of the 20th century, Stalin or Hitler?
Stalin is responsible for more deaths.
I think that's pretty inarguable.
But who's more evil?
They're equal.
As evil as a person can possibly be, they both reached that level.
They both plunged to that depth, I think we could say.
Though it is funny that if you, I think if you compared something, when you talked about how Marjorie Taylor Greene got into so much trouble because she made a holocaust analogy, even though the left, they make holocaust and Hitler analogies all the time.
But if you compare something to almost any other historical atrocity, even probably more recent ones, you're not going to get the same outraged reaction as you would with a holocaust analogy, if you're someone on the right.
And again, if you're on the left, then you can say whatever you want.
But I think a lot of this comes down simply to historical ignorance.
And that's one of the reasons why people always go right to the Holocaust analogy, the Hitler analogy.
It's not anti-Semitism.
That charge doesn't even make any sense.
But this comes simply from, I think in a lot of cases, historical ignorance.
The Holocaust is one of the only historical events that people these days Especially if you've been through the public school system, actually know anything about.
And even with that, I mean, these are not experts on World War II, but they know in broad strokes that this happened and that it was a terrible thing.
And I think that's why Hitler comes up so much.
Even in cases when they're, you know, depending on the point trying to be made, there might be another historical villain who's a better analog.
But most people don't know about those other people.
I don't think you can overstate the historical ignorance in America today.
It's a big problem.
You see all these man-on-the-street interviews, which are really funny and we could all have fun with them, where you go to a college campus and you have a microphone and a camera, and you ask college students questions like, what century did the Civil War happen in?
And they have no idea.
And we all laugh about that, and it is funny, but it's also terrifying.
You have entire generations of Americans who know nothing about their own history, and then are very easily manipulated, as we've seen.
I get messages and emails every day, many of them, asking if The Daily Wire is hiring and can I hire them for this or that position.
The thing is, I'm not in charge of that or anything around here, but I can tell you because I have it on this sheet of paper.
Here's some information that has been given to me to tell you.
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.
Whatever that is, this person will be responsible for, oh, here we go, we know now.
So 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, familiarity with bookkeeping and basic accounting procedures are key for this role.
Our ideal candidate is also highly organized and has a strong attention to detail.
Basically, it's not me, okay?
I'm personally the wrong person for this, which is why I do what I do.
But if you want this job, it's a full-time in-office position in Nashville, and candidates can apply through dailywire.com slash career.
So go there now.
And if you haven't entered to win yet, while you're there at dailywire.com,
if you haven't entered to win our Daily Wire Studio tour to meet Candace Owens yet,
then you still have a chance.
This is your final chance to do it.
It's your last chance to sign up as a Daily Wire member with code VIP.
You can get 20% off your new membership and be automatically entered for a chance to win a trip
to the Daily Wire Studios to see Candace live.
The sweepstakes ends on Monday, May 31st.
So time is running out.
You only got a few days.
Go now.
Not only will you meet Candace, you also get an inside look at her studio
and front row seats to watch her live and in action on her talk show, Candace.
You're not going to get another chance to do this, so don't sleep on it.
Go enter now to win two VIP tickets to get a Candice VIP pass at dailywire.com slash subscribe using code VIP for 20% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation, Maxine Waters enters the ring.
It may seem surprising that Maxine Waters has been cancelled, I think maybe only once or twice in this segment before.
She could, of course, be cancelled every day, and that explains why she rarely is.
It'd be sort of redundant to cancel her every time she deserves it.
We have to pick our spots.
The thing about Representative Maxine Waters is that she is equal parts stupid, evil, and racist.
And this can make it especially difficult to figure out whether any particular thing she does or says or policy she proposes was motivated more by her stupidity, her wickedness, or her racism.
Often it's an equal and equitable mix of all three.
I think that's probably the case here.
Waters has proposed a plan To give Americans some help in making a down payment on their first homes.
This may or may not sound like a good idea to you at first blush, but before you draw any conclusions, you have to remember, this is Maxine Waters we're talking about here.
This is the modern Democrat Party we're talking about.
Their plans to help Americans are never plans to help all Americans.
That's why, as a Politico headline puts it, the real purpose of this proposal is to, quote, close the racial wealth gap.
Of course.
Everything is always racial for these people.
Just as there's only ever six degrees of separation between any Hollywood actor and Kevin Bacon, there's only ever at least, or at most, two degrees of separation between any democratic policy proposal and their racial obsessions.
It always comes back to that.
Always.
So let's read now from the Politico article to get the gist of this plan.
It says a $10 billion proposal by House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters would give homebuyers up to $25,000 for a down payment.
President Joe Biden's top housing official, HUD Secretary Marsha Fudge, which is just a great name for a bureaucrat, says such assistance is a priority for the administration.
Okay, pausing there for a second.
$10 billion.
Well, what's $10 billion between friends?
There are reports this morning that Biden is about to unveil a $6 trillion budget.
$6 trillion.
Now, as Ben pointed out on Twitter, $6 trillion is actually $12 trillion when you factor in the COVID stimulus, his family's plan, etc.
That's all of the proposed spending in just six months.
He's proposing an average of $2 trillion a month, he has proposed, on average.
By the end of his tenure at this rate, he'll have spent I don't know, what, $96 trillion if my math is right, which it probably isn't?
Either way, the fact remains, these are astronomical amounts of money.
These are such large amounts of money that you can't even really call them amounts of money.
These numbers are so large, they effectively don't exist.
There's no way to conceptualize them.
Biden is spending money as if there is no such thing as money.
I would say he's spending money like it grows on trees, but we'd need more trees than exist on Earth to harvest this much.
So $10 billion, that is pocket change, I suppose.
But even so, it's a terrible plan for reasons that should already be clear, but will only become clearer as we keep reading.
It says, Waters' plan has triggered concern in the mortgage industry because it would require lenders to identify and direct aid to first-generation buyers, those whose parents don't own homes.
And by the way, I have no idea how they would even identify that group, and they don't really have any idea how they would either.
There isn't some database out there, as far as I know, Of Americans who've never bought homes before.
Anyway, and it would also direct aid to socially and economically disadvantaged groups.
The move is also stirring broader criticism about how much it would help buyers and whether it would even put them at risk.
Quote, we are simply providing first-generation homebuyers, largely people of color, what white first-time homebuyers have been receiving for years in the form of the daddy down payment loan, family assistance that is almost never repaid.
Said David Dworkin, President and CEO of the National Housing Conference and Advocacy Group.
The plan with the most traction, the $10 billion proposal in a housing infrastructure bill by Waters, would give state housing finance agencies grants to award up to $20,000 in down payment assistance to first-generation homebuyers below a certain income threshold and up to $25,000 if the homebuyer is from a socially and economically disadvantaged group.
Waters' bill includes the provision alongside massive investments in public housing and the National Housing Trust Fund.
The bill defines socially disadvantaged homebuyers, who would qualify for larger credit, as individuals identifying as Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian American.
But, quote, such presumption may be rebutted with credible evidence to the contrary, according to a discussion draft of the legislation.
So there it is.
If you didn't know any better, and you hear someone say that they want to help the socially disadvantaged, You might think that sounds like a fine idea.
But then you learn that socially disadvantaged is just a slightly more sanitized way of saying anyone who isn't white.
The plan here isn't so much to help black people or minorities, it's to not help white people.
They are, after all, the only group left off the list.
Even Asians are on the list of socially disadvantaged, but Asians have a higher median household income than whites in this country.
Asians are doing better than white people, and by a pretty significant margin.
Whites are, in fact, more, quote, disadvantaged than Asians.
The fact that they qualify, that Asians qualify for assistance and white people don't, proves, if it wasn't clear already, That the real point here is simply to exclude whites.
Because they're white.
It's racist.
And illegal.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of race.
Laws that dole out perks based on race while leaving whites in the cold are unconstitutional by definition.
Now, the argument that activists give for this racist plan, as you heard, is that white people have been getting help from their parents on their down payments, and so it's only fair if black people get help from the government.
The problem with that argument is, first of all, not all white people have parents who give them money to make down payments.
Mine didn't.
I've bought three homes.
I don't own three homes, but we've moved three times in the last four years, and I've bought homes in each place.
I didn't get any help on any of those down payments.
And besides, here's a concept that more people need to understand.
The government is not your daddy.
There are plenty of things that parents do or can do which the government can't do or shouldn't do.
And anyway, whatever the government is doing, it is racist and illegal to favor certain groups based on race while excluding others on the same basis.
Aside from the racial component, though, the whole idea of down payment assistance from the government is catastrophically awful on its own merits, even the race stuff aside.
A pretty good general principle is this.
If you can't afford to make a down payment on a home, then you can't afford the home.
If you need $25,000 from daddy government in order to afford even just the down payment, how are you going to pay your mortgage going forward?
What about utilities?
HOA fees if you have them.
Will you have money to fix a leaky pipe or a broken HVAC unit?
Many expenses come with homeownership.
Believe me, we're going through that right now as people just recently bought a home.
Throwing people into homes they can't afford, all in the name of racial equity, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Especially now as the housing market is challenging enough for buyers.
It's very hard to find a house right now, again, I know what I'm talking about, because the demand is through the roof, and the houses that are available are all more expensive than they'd be in a normal market, and they're getting more expensive every day.
Now throw a bunch of homeowners, or potential homeowners, with a check from the government into the mix, and you just made it harder for buyers, not easier, more expensive, not more affordable.
It's a bad idea on every level.
Foolish, short-sighted, ridiculous, also racist.
Exactly what we've come to expect from Maxine Waters and friends.
And that is why she is today, of course, cancelled.
As she is every other day, whether I say it or not, specifically.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by 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 Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
The CDC is investigating possible heart problems in young people brought on by the COVID vaccine.
Dr. Fauci admits he was wrong about the Wuhan Institute funding.
And a liberal commentator wants to know your favorite thing about being white.
