Ep. 847 - I Now Identify As A Bestselling Children’s Author
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I am now a children’s author. My book went on sale yesterday, and it’s already making some people very upset. I’ll explain why today. Also, Joe Biden gives a press conference about the dreaded super mega turbo omicron variant. Lauren Boebert and Ilhan Omar attempt to patch up their differences over a phone call and it doesn’t go well. Chris Cuomo finds himself in another scandal involving his brother. The trial of Kim Potter, the officer who accidentally shot Daunte Wright, begins. Most people on both the left and right seem to think she deserves jail time. I disagree and I’ll explain why. And we take a look at a gender studies masters thesis. You might expect it to be totally delusional and insane. And you’re right. But it’s even worse than you imagine.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Get my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1j6
Sign The Petition To Keep Matt Walsh on Saint Louis University Campus: https://bit.ly/3Dzeu1f
DW members get special product discounts up to 20% off PLUS access to exclusive Daily Wire merch. Grab your Daily Wire merch here: https://utm.io/udZpp
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, I am now a children's author.
My book went on sale yesterday, and it's already making some people very upset.
I'll explain why today.
Also, Joe Biden gives a press conference about the dreaded super mega turbo Omicron variant, and Lauren Boebert and Ilhan Omar attempt to patch up their differences over a phone call, and it apparently doesn't go well.
Chris Cuomo finds himself in another scandal involving his brother, and the trial of Kim Potter, who's the officer who accidentally shot Dante Wright, begins.
Most people on both the left and right seem to think she deserves jail time.
I disagree, and I'll explain why.
And we'll take a look at a gender studies master's thesis.
You might expect it to be totally delusional and insane, and you're right, but it's even worse than you imagine.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wohl Show.
[MUSIC]
Well, I am thrilled to once again talk about an incredible app that everyone who
buys gas needs to know about.
It's called Get Upside.
My listeners are making up to 25 cents for every gallon of gas every time they fill up.
Just download the free Get Upside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
It's all upside with GetUpside.
That's why it's an appropriately named product.
Use promo code WALSH and get a bonus 25 cents per gallon on your first fill-up.
That's up to 50 cents a gallon cash back.
25 cents a gallon from then on out.
Don't pay full price of the pump anymore, especially considering how full those prices are at the moment.
Get cash back using GetUpside.
Just download the app for free.
Use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank.
Some people who drive a lot are making, I've talked to people who are making $200 to $300, $400 a month in cash back.
But whatever you make, it's free money that you're getting back to you.
So why wouldn't you take advantage?
You can cash out anytime to your bank account, PayPal, or even get an e-gift card to Amazon or somewhere else.
Just download the free GetUpside app and use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first take.
That's code WALSH.
Well, first, we saved Abuela, and then we saved Virginia, and now we are saving the children's book genre.
As any parent who has ventured into the children's section at Barnes & Noble knows, the category has become totally flooded by left-wing propaganda.
Every other title on the shelf is like, Anti-Racist Baby, or I Am Jazz, or Jacob's New Dress, or Charlie the Unicorn Has Two Mommies and Three Daddies, or whatever.
A good portion of this agitprop has a racial message, Like anti-racist maybe, but most of it is focused on gender and identity.
The first and primary goal of the indoctrinators is to induct children into the religion of gender ideology.
Why is that so important?
Well, because, as I have long argued, we are in the midst of a war over truth itself.
These are not scuffles around the edges of truth.
We're not fighting over the truth or falsehood of this or that claim.
The goal of the leftists, fundamentally, is to relativize everything.
Relativize reality.
He wants to be the god of his own life, his own universe.
This is how he envisions freedom.
This is what he means when he uses the word.
Freedom in the sense of being untethered from any sort of objective, defining, or definable force.
Floating aimlessly in some sort of ambiguous abyss.
That's his goal.
That's freedom.
And if this is the goal, then there's no better place to start than by undermining biological reality, freeing oneself from biology.
And there's no better place to start that project than with children, who already have a tenuous grasp on reality and will believe pretty much anything you tell them.
Children have no choice but to rely on the adults around them to guide them through the early stages of life.
The young of many different species have this need to one degree or another, and sometimes in the lesser species, this vulnerability of the young and their reliance on the older members of the species puts them in danger.
Rats, for example, will sometimes eat their own young.
Lions and scorpions will do the same.
Humans have a more ideological version of this.
Helpless children are devoured by the leftist indoctrinators.
The predator feeds upon the innocence of the child, exploits it, using that innocence to his own advantage.
This is going on everywhere, especially in the books and the shows and other forms of entertainment made for kids these days.
And for a long time, conservatives have essentially surrendered this ground to the left, like it surrendered almost everything else, allowing the left to turn children's books into vehicles for this cult-like brainwashing without offering any response or alternative, basically.
But it's time for that to change, which is why, as I told Tucker Carlson last night when I announced the book, I have embraced my true calling as a children's author, cardigan and all, and written my first work of children's literature, which is Johnny the Walrus, which I have right here.
Now, I'm not going to do a reading on the show today.
Originally, I was going to do that, but we actually have a video coming out later today where I read the book to a group of preschoolers, and that should be released at some point this afternoon or evening on my YouTube channel.
Make sure you check that out.
You don't want to miss it.
So instead, I'll give you just the brief synopsis.
It's kind of difficult to summarize because it's a lengthy story of some 400 words across 30 cardboard pages.
It took me many months to write, as you can imagine.
Many nights I spent hunched over my typewriter, honing and crafting this work of literature.
But in brief, if I can summarize, it's a story about a creative and imaginative young child Like most young children, creative and imaginative, he likes to play pretend, and one day he pretends to be a walrus, as you can see on the cover there.
He even has wood spoons in his mouth, like tusks, and socks on his hands, like fins.
But unfortunately, his mommy is the confused and impressionable sort, and she learns from the internet that if your child identifies as something, then he must actually be that thing.
Johnny's mommy thus spends the majority of the story trying to, you know, raise her child according to his walrus self-identity.
She does her best to, you know, give her trans walrus son the sort of walrus life that she thinks he wants and needs.
And at one point, at the darkest point in the novel, Which, yes, I am calling it a novel, even if the pages are made of cardboard.
She brings him to a purple-haired doctor who recommends that he take medication and undergo surgical procedures to complete his walrus transition.
Pretty brutal procedure, too.
Over time, though, not to spoil the ending.
Johnny's mommy comes to understand that just because a child pretends to be something, that doesn't mean he actually is what he's pretending to be.
So this is a book, in many ways, about self-acceptance.
True self-acceptance.
We've heard that phrase a lot, but true self-acceptance.
A mother's realization that her child will only really be happy in his true, natural identity.
We should encourage our kids to use their imaginations, but what we should not do is create an identity crisis within our kids, as so many parents have done these days.
Now, my goal with this book, which you can buy now at johnnythewalrus.com, that's johnnythewalrus.com, was to create something that makes a point about the madness of gender ideology, a point that parents will understand, but also something that you could actually read to your kids at the same time.
Kids will engage with it as just a silly sort of story about a boy pretending to be a walrus.
Adults will understand it on a different level.
But my hope also is that kids, after they hear this story, will come to understand phrases like, identifies as, in a certain light.
Now, I don't use the word transgenderism in the book, because I'm not going to introduce that concept myself to the kids.
But later on, when they do encounter these concepts, which they will, eventually, at one point or another, hopefully their mind will make the connection back to this story.
They can say, oh, this person is a boy who identifies as a girl.
That's just like the boy who identified as a walrus.
They ought to understand it in that framework, in that context.
Because it is exactly that sort of thing.
Raising a boy as a girl is exactly as absurd and grotesque and wrong as raising a boy as a walrus.
Exactly the same.
These are the connections that I want to make with this book, which you can now buy at johnnythewalrus.com.
Now, I've been accused of making a mockery of gender ideology with this book, treating it as a joke, as something totally ridiculous.
And on that point, my critics are correct.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
I am not only trying to make a point here for adults on one level and kids on another, but I'm also openly making fun of the whole idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys.
We ought to make fun of that idea.
It's the idea we're making fun of.
Now, the kids themselves, we don't make fun of them.
Far from it.
They are victims.
But the idea ought to be mocked.
We ought to mock it because it is patently insane and worthy of mockery.
You know, mockery is an important tool.
We should use it more often, I think, on the right.
When something deserves to be mocked, it should be.
When someone comes forward with an idea that's completely insane and has no basis in reality, if you do anything but mock it, then you are affirming it.
If you, if you in any way whatsoever take the idea seriously, even if you don't agree with it, if you sit down and say, well, I don't really agree, but let's talk about this.
Let's, let's have this kind of, well, let's have the conversation and I'm, you've already affirmed it.
So, mockery, yes, that's exactly correct.
I've also been accused of engaging in my own form of indoctrination.
That's one thing.
I've got a lot of emails and messages saying, well, aren't you?
You're against indoctrination.
Isn't this book Johnny the Walrus?
Isn't this indoctrination?
Yes, it is.
Again, my critics are correct.
It is indoctrination.
I am also doing indoctrination.
I am indoctrinating kids with this book.
As I said, I literally read the book to a room of preschoolers and indoctrinated them, proudly so.
See, I have nothing against indoctrination per se.
What matters is not that kids are being indoctrinated.
Of course they're being indoctrinated.
All kids are.
But the issue is what precisely they are being indoctrinated into.
So I am indoctrinating kids into reality, into truth, into common sense.
Into a sense of the world that is grounded in truth.
That's exactly the sort of indoctrination we ought to be doing.
Finally, my critics will say that I am not a real children's author, that this is just a stunt or a gag, that my name does not belong in the pantheon of great children's authors alongside Seuss and Dahl and Silverstein.
That is one criticism I cannot agree with or abide.
This is my chosen identity now, and I have the cardigan to prove it.
Johnny the Walrus is a legitimate children's book, and what's more, it is a work of literature and some would say, some would say that it's perhaps even the finest American novel ever written.
Some would say that.
I'll leave you to make that assessment, which you can do after you purchase the book at johnnythewalrus.com.
Please do it soon, though, because Amazon is, I'm almost certain they're going to ban this thing any minute.
So there is a certain urgency here.
Also, it will be very, very funny if we can get this book to the top of the charts.
It's already in the top 20 or 25, which is funny.
But the top spot would be, among other things, hilarious, you have to admit.
We just need the extra push to get it there, which you can provide by buying a copy for yourself and your family members, especially your liberal family members.
This would make a great Christmas gift for them at johnnythewalrus.com.
But in any case, wherever it settles on the charts and whether it gets banned or not.
What I am saying to the left today is that two can play at the children's book game.
I have my sweater on.
I'm ready for war on this battlefield too.
With my friend Johnny the Walrus by my side.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, thankfully, I have again another opportunity to talk about my favorite subject, which is
refinancing mortgages.
Okay?
This is the realm that I kind of live in.
And if you are living in a home right now, did you know that it can cost you less?
You're paying more than you have to pay.
You can lower your payment and save thousands long-term.
You just have to refinance to one of these incredibly low mortgage rates.
And you should do it now before they're gone.
These rates are expected to rise in the new year.
You cannot afford to miss out on this money-saving opportunity, especially with how expensive everything is these days.
Here's a chance to save some money every single month.
Just takes a 10-minute call to American Financing, America's home for home loans.
You'll work with a salary-based mortgage consultant, someone who will guide you through custom loan options.
That can save you up to $1,000 a month.
That's right, $1,000 a month is what you could be saving.
You don't have to reset your loan to get these kinds of savings.
You can choose any term, 10 years and over, because you shouldn't pay interest for years that you don't need.
Pre-qualify for free at 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
All right.
You know, I was saying yesterday about talking about my Thanksgiving Break and how my wife was fat shaming me and body shaming me on the internet.
There is something else that I was just thinking about.
I feel kind of bad because before, I think it was on Thanksgiving Day before dinner, but you know, we were sitting in the living room and my mom told me that she couldn't, she was having trouble getting her VCR to work.
So she was telling me that she needed help with her VCR.
And she wanted to see if I could figure it out.
And the problem is that, and she knows this, okay?
I mean, she obviously knows this.
I'm a sarcastic a-hole.
I mean, hence this book.
So you can't come to me and ask me to help you with your VCR without me first making fun of it for about five minutes.
I can't control, it's an impulse.
A VCR?
So she asked me to help fix the VCR and I said, you know, unfortunately I would, but it's the year 2021 and I left my time machine at home.
And then I said I would, but, uh, and, you know, and, and afterwards maybe I could help fix her printing press.
Maybe I could take a stab at repairing her butter churn.
And I had this whole routine about the VCR and then she just gave up asking and I, and I, and I never fixed it.
So she's at home now with a broken VCR.
What a terrible son I am. I feel bad about that.
Okay.
Let's go to...
Well, we'll start with this.
Joe Biden gave a press conference about, here's someone who knows something about VCRs.
Joe Biden gave a press conference about the dreaded Omicron, what is it?
There's one, he uses the phrase Omni, so I'm not even sure if it's Omicron or Omnicron, I'm not sure what it is, but it's the super mega charged turbo deluxe variant.
And here he is talking about it.
The very day the World Health Organization identified the new variant, I took immediate steps to restrict travel from countries in Southern Africa.
But while we have that travel restrictions can slow the speed of Omicron, it cannot prevent it.
But here's what it does.
It gives us time.
It gives us time to take more actions, to move quicker, to make sure people understand you have to get your vaccine, you have to get the shot, you have to get the booster.
The sooner or later we're going to see cases of this new variant here in the United States.
We'll have to face this new threat just as we face those that come before it.
This variant is a cause for concern, not a cause for panic.
We have the best vaccine in the world, the best medicines, the best scientists, and we're learning more every single day.
And we'll fight this variant with scientific and knowledgeable actions and speed, not chaos and confusion.
In the event, hopefully unlikely, that updated vaccinations or boosters are needed to respond
to this new variant, we will accelerate their development and deployment with
every available tool.
I want to reiterate that Dr. Fauci believes...
We've heard enough.
This is always the process where first they say, well, it's not a cause.
Don't panic.
But it's a cause for concern.
So we start there.
And then within a few days, they're saying, yeah, actually, you got to stay locked in your home.
And if you go outside without a mask on, you're going to kill your grandparents and your children.
But don't panic.
Can we just say this?
First of all, wearing the mask around everywhere is a form of panic.
So that's what that is.
So when they say, well, don't panic, just wear your mask everywhere.
What they're saying is don't panic, but panic.
That's a panic.
And there are people, of course, as we know, that have been In literally a perpetual state of panic for a year and a half, almost two years now.
A non-stop state of panic.
When you see someone walking down the street with a mask on, and I saw it again the other day.
Not here in Nashville, but we were traveling.
I saw it again.
Someone in their car.
This is not over.
There are people still doing this.
And they're going to continue to do it forever.
It's a lifestyle now.
But someone in their car by themselves with a mask on.
You know, that classic scene.
But that is someone who has been in a is in a total state of panic and has not left that state and probably never will.
I don't know how they've survived just from a cardiovascular perspective.
I don't know.
They haven't had all had heart attacks by now.
So of course they do want you to panic even though The only thing that they should be saying about Omnicorn is that, as far as we know, it's nothing to worry about.
It's all the information we have right now.
Of course, information can always change.
Anything could happen, right?
It could happen that tomorrow some variant with a 50% fatality rate comes along.
It probably won't, but it could happen.
We don't need to talk about could.
Especially when the question is, how are people living their lives?
You can't live your life in response to theories and coulds and worst-case scenarios.
You have to live your life.
So according to everything we know, all the information we have, we played the clip for you yesterday of the doctor who first alerted people to this variant, and she's the one saying, it's nothing to panic about.
These are very mild symptoms.
It's a cold.
That's my word, not hers.
But she said very mild symptoms.
These are cold-like symptoms.
If the president is going to say anything about Omnicorn, that's all he really needs to say.
Speaking of being in a perpetual state of panic, we know in New Zealand, both in Australia and New Zealand, if there's even one case, of COVID, whether it's Omnicorn or anything else, they shut
everything down.
And New Zealand has been in a shutdown for who knows how long.
They're now starting to open things up a little bit.
And the prime minister of New Zealand gave her own press conference yesterday, where
she finally gave the citizens of her country permission to go into their friends' homes
and even if they want, use the bathroom.
This is a great privilege that this benevolent and generous woman has bestowed upon her citizens.
Let's listen to that.
And importantly, because I know this is a question many Aucklanders have, you can now see family and friends again in their homes and use the bathroom inside.
Luxury.
Isn't that funny?
It's hilarious.
Now there's nothing funny about it at all and politicians should be terrified to speak to their citizens this way.
The whole idea of a politician standing in front of a camera and giving you permission to go to your friend's house and use the bathroom I would say treating you like a child, but that's something even worse than that.
Because my own children don't ask for permission to go to the bathroom.
I don't have to ask for permission for that.
So you are being more infantilized than a child.
And politicians should be terrified doing that.
They should be terrified to speak to their citizens that way.
But they're not, and this isn't just in New Zealand or Australia, it's here too.
Talking to us like we are idiots, like we are children, but even dumber than that.
Treating us like literal babies.
All across the West, this is how politicians talk to their citizens, and it was never supposed to be that way.
Not in our system, anyway.
All right, speaking of politicians, let's move to this.
This is from The Hill, a little bit of an update about a story we talked about yesterday in The Daily Cancellation.
Representatives Ilhan Omar and Lauren Boebert clashed in what would both described as a tense phone call on Monday after video surfaced of the far-right lawmaker, according to The Hill, using that qualification.
Making Islamophobic remarks about her colleague.
The two lawmakers issued separate statements after the phone call, making clear that neither found the conversation to be helpful in settling their differences.
This is the statement.
We'll play Lauren Boebert talking about the phone call.
But first, here is Ilhan Omar, released her own statement about this phone call.
And she said, today I graciously accepted a call from Representative Lauren Boebert.
We'll stop right there and say that gracious people never describe their actions as gracious, okay?
It's a good hint that someone is not gracious, is if they have described what they are doing as gracious.
Today, I graciously accepted a phone call from Representative Lauren Boebert in the hope of receiving a direct apology for falsely claiming that she met me in an elevator, suggesting I was a terrorist, and for a history of anti-Muslim hate.
Instead of apologizing for her Islamophobic comments and fabricated lies, Representative Boebert refused to publicly acknowledge her hurtful and dangerous comments.
She instead doubled down on her rhetoric, and I decided to end the unproductive call.
I believe in engaging with those we disagree with respectfully, but not when that disagreement is rooted in outright bigotry and hate.
Well, we also know it's not gracious because you said you received the phone call because you wanted an apology.
That's not gracious.
I graciously accepted a phone call In the hopes that the other person would bow before me and grovel and apologize.
I graciously provided them the opportunity in the platform to grovel before my feet.
And this is apparently, and both sides say that this is, you know, they have their own version of it, but it ended with Ilhan Omar hanging up and it didn't go well.
Now, backing up for a second, Like I said, we talked about this in the Daily Cancellation.
And who was I cancelling?
I was cancelling Lauren Boebert.
And not for the joke that she made.
She made a joke at some kind of event in her district.
She made a joke about Ilhan Omar, saying that she was worried being in an elevator with Omar, but then she realized that Omar didn't have a backpack on, so she felt okay about it.
And it's actually kind of a funny joke.
And as I said, it's a joke that Ilhan Omar totally deserves and brings on herself, not because she's Muslim, But because she openly sympathizes with terrorists, and she laughs about terrorist attacks, and she's dismissive of 9-11, the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history.
Famously, she described it as, some people did something.
Just like we could say with Lauren Boebert, some woman told some joke.
So, because that's her attitude towards terrorism, And she's openly sympathetic of terrorists.
That's why she brings those jokes on herself.
And even if she wasn't Muslim, the jokes would still work.
So that's all okay.
I'm fine with a joke.
Is it a respectful way to talk about your colleague?
No.
But does Ilhan Omar, one of the most vile and vapid people in Congress, does she deserve respect?
No.
I think all of us as adults, if we want to be respected, we have to earn it.
Okay?
I believe that firmly.
And that is doubly true for politicians.
The whole respecting the office bit?
No.
That's not our system.
We don't live under a monarchy.
If you want to be respected as a politician, as a public servant, then you got to earn that.
And if you don't, then you deserve to be disrespected.
Every day, all the time.
That's the healthy way to treat politicians like that.
So, none of that is a problem.
The problem is that, and the reason she got cancelled yesterday, is that Boebert did issue a public apology.
She tweeted out a statement apologizing, and even worse, she apologized to the Muslim community Which only confirms this idea that this comment was made as some kind of anti-Muslim comment, when it wasn't.
This was a specific joke about Ilhan Omar specifically because of her specific actions and words.
So, by apologizing and giving the outrage mob what it wants, there's no winning now.
That's the thing.
You put yourself in an unwinnable situation.
And what you can't do is grovel and apologize, as Boebert has already done.
Once you do that, you can't then backtrack and say, I'm going to stand firm.
It's too late.
The other thing you notice is, and this is why there's one of the many reasons why apologizing is always a bad idea.
Putting everything else aside, it's not going to work.
You're only doing it.
You're not doing it because you actually feel bad about it.
No, you're doing it because you think it's in your best interest.
It's self-serving.
And you think it's going to call the mob off.
But it won't.
Because she publicly apologized, and what did Ilhan Omar do?
She demanded another apology.
And if she got that apology, she'd ask for another one.
So here is Boebert.
Talking about this, and I think really illustrating why you put yourself in an unwinnable, a lose-lose situation when you start apologizing.
Let's listen.
Hey everyone, this is Lauren with a quick update on a phone call I had today with squad member Ilhan Omar.
I had reached out to her Friday and three days later I was able to connect with her on the phone because I wanted to let her know directly that I had reflected on my previous remarks.
Now, as a strong Christian woman who values faith deeply, I never want anything I say to offend someone's religion.
So I told her that, even after I put out a public statement to that effect.
She said that she still wanted a public apology because what I had done wasn't good enough, so I reiterated to her what I had just said.
She kept asking for a public apology, so I told Ilhan Omar that she should make a public apology to the American people for her anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-police rhetoric.
She continued to press, and I continued to press back.
And then, Representative Omar hung up on me.
Rejecting an apology and hanging up on someone is part of cancel culture 101, and a pillar of the Democrat Party.
Make no mistake, I will continue to fearlessly put America first, never sympathizing with terrorists.
I'm sorry, it's kind of embarrassing now for Boebert.
It's too late for that.
That is a strong, courageous, and I'm going to apply bipartisan fair is fair here.
You don't describe your own actions as gracious.
You also don't describe your own actions as fearless.
Okay?
Fearless people don't say, I fearlessly did this.
Especially because it's too late for that.
You already apologized.
So it's too late to take a fearless stand.
You may be exhausted with it now because you realize that one apology means you have to just apologize again.
And so you're kind of backing away out of exhaustion.
Fine.
But that's not a fearless stand.
The time to take a fearless stand was before.
It's too late now.
You might get another opportunity in the future, but as far as this incident goes, you already lost because you apologized.
And everything you do from here on, the best thing to do now is just move on from it.
Making a phone call.
Why even make the phone call?
What was the point of that?
You didn't want to continue to grovel.
I appreciate that.
So then why talk on the phone?
All you can do now... Does Lauren Boebert, does she have a comms team?
Does she have a PR team at all?
Move on from this.
Don't do any more videos.
Leave it alone.
You lost this one because you apologized.
It's over.
There's no way to flip it back around.
Everything you do now just makes you seem more sort of petty and childish.
Um, and she says, and she's still saying, she says, well, I, you know, I wanted to let her know that I reflected on my previous comments.
You didn't reflect on it.
You reacted.
This is not reflection.
It's reaction.
Okay.
When you say something and, uh, and, and, and then you say it and that's it.
And then there's a huge public reaction to it and outrage.
And then you apologize.
That's not because, You reflected.
You didn't go off, climb a mountain or something, talk to some guru up on a mountain about the meaning of life and come back with your deep reflections, okay?
You know, you didn't do that.
You didn't go off to the beach and sit there and stare at the sunset and think deeply about this.
No.
You panicked because people were upset at you, and you reacted.
Reflection is exactly what is needed and didn't happen here.
And also, as I said yesterday, and I don't mean to harp on this, but it's so important, and I'm so tired of seeing this from conservatives.
The reflection should happen before, okay?
You're saying something in front of an audience, you know you're on camera, and if you didn't know you're on camera, then that's even dumber.
You have to assume, as a politician or anybody, talking into a microphone in front of an audience, you're on camera.
And so you choose to offer this anecdote, this joke.
You obviously know that it's edgy, that it's politically incorrect.
You know that.
So reflect ahead of time.
I'm not saying don't say it.
I'm saying reflect ahead of time about what the reaction is going to be and how you are going to respond when that inevitable reaction happens.
So it's too late.
Move on.
Learn from it.
Come back next time and do better.
That would be my advice.
If I was ever hired by a politician to be their communications director, which will never happen.
But that's the right thing.
Okay.
And that's in general.
Last point I'll make about this.
When it comes to public outrage, and if I had a PR firm, my advice would be very simple.
My job would be very easy.
Because when it comes to public outrage, There are two possible courses of action, and only two.
One is to say nothing at all, and that's always a valid option.
Saying nothing is always a valid option because no one is going to remember this.
There are a million things happening every single day.
We are bombarded by information.
There's always a new controversy.
There's always something new trending.
Okay, you're trending on Twitter because people are mad at you.
Even at the moment that you're trending, there are 50 other things trending.
And the most you'll ever trend is for like 12 hours, and then it goes away.
So ignoring it completely is definitely an option.
Or, if you're not going to do that, then double down and refuse to apologize.
But do it in a smart way, have a plan in place, know exactly what you're doing.
Those are the two.
That's it.
And for most people, the best option a lot of the time, especially if you're not a political person, the best option is the first one, which is to say nothing.
Next, here's another PR crisis from CNBC.
It says CNN host Chris Cuomo used his sources in the media world to seek information on women who accused his brother Andrew Cuomo, then the governor of New York, of sexual harassment, according to documents released Monday by the New York Attorney General's office.
While Chris Cuomo has previously acknowledged advising his brother and his team on the response to the scandals, the records show that his role in helping the then-governor was much larger and more intimate than previously known.
Chris Cuomo was actively in touch with Melissa DeRosa, who was the then-governor's top aide about incoming media reports that detailed alleged sexual harassment by Andrew Cuomo.
He also lobbied to help the governor's office as it sought to weather the storm, and he dictated statements for the then-governor to use.
Apparently he tweeted to DeRosa in one message, or rather texted her, please let me help with the prep.
And at another point, in reference to Anna Rutsch, who accused Cuomo of making an unwanted advance, he said, I have a lead on the wedding girl.
Okay, so he's using his sources to find out information about these women, he's helped him to craft statements, he's doing all of this, and he's doing all of this while he's Ostensibly, I don't know what he even considers himself, a journalist.
I can hardly say it without laughing.
Here's what I'll say about this.
First of all, I can't stand Chris Cuomo.
I've got no love for Chris Cuomo.
If he gets fired, fine.
That's fine with me.
He deserves to be fired for a million different reasons.
With all that said, this particular scandal It doesn't bother me all that much.
Of all the reasons to be upset at Chris Cuomo, generally being a dishonest hack is the main reason.
And that's why I don't like him.
And that's why he deserves to be fired.
I'll be fine if he is.
Even though, as we've covered, he's just going to be replaced by somebody worse, but even so.
As far as this goes, it's not the kind of thing that makes me very upset, and I'll tell you why.
I'm not defending it ethically.
I'm just saying that helping out a family member, even by potentially unethical means, I'm not saying it's the objectively morally correct path, but I understand it.
I understand when someone pulls strings to help their brother out, help their sister out.
If it were me, you know, if my brother was caught up in some kind of thing, and there was something I could do behind the scenes to help him out, I'd probably do it.
Doesn't make it right, but, you know, I'm a firm believer in putting family first.
So I guess my point is, of all the reasons to dislike Cuomo, I would put this near the bottom of the list.
So it's very similar to his brother.
Who is getting all the grief and all the flack for the sexual harassment claims.
Meanwhile, he's got this other issue of where he killed elderly people.
And so I'm not going to defend him on the sexual harassment claims, but what I am going to say is, really, we should be focusing on this thing over here, which is much, much worse.
And with Chris Cuomo, he doesn't have anything quite as bad as murdering elderly people.
I mean, most people have never done that, but he does have sins, I think, that are worse than, you know, trying to help his brother out.
Okay, next, three trials are starting this week.
Jussie Smollett, Ghislaine Maxwell.
I still have not figured out how to pronounce her first name.
We're gonna go with Ghislaine.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Kim Potter.
Potter was the officer who accidentally shot Dante Wright in Minneapolis during a traffic stop.
She was trying to arrest him.
He fought her.
She meant to reach for her taser, but she pulled her gun instead.
Just to give you an idea of how this trial is being covered and to kind of review some of the facts of the case, here's the local NBC affiliate talking about it.
And this is talking about the case and specifically Dante Wright's family, who had a press conference yesterday and what they're saying about this.
We are expecting justice.
We are not asking for it.
One day before jury selection begins in the manslaughter trial of Kim Potter, dozens of community leaders and families of those killed at the hands of law enforcement stood in solidarity with Daunte Wright's mother, Katie.
Thank everybody for the support.
Back on April 11th, Wright, a 20-year-old black man, was pulled over by Brooklyn Center police officers due to expired tags.
Officer Kim Potter pulled out her gun and shot Wright once in the chest as seen in body camera footage.
Potter later said she meant to pull out her taser instead of her gun.
Potter now faces first and second degree manslaughter charges.
Defense attorneys argue the shooting was an accident.
Dante Wright was a student of mine at Edison High School.
George Floyd's girlfriend, Courtney Ross, recalled the day she first heard of Wright's death.
By the time I got home, I found out that that man That young man was Dante Wright.
Mind you, Dante's murder took place during the international trial of my man George Floyd.
Okay, so there's the trial of Dante Wright and what his family is saying.
And we get the picture, as always, the necessary picture of Dante Wright, you know, sitting there holding a child, looking very, very innocent.
What we should remember is that Dante Wright The way the media reports it is that Dante Wright was stopped for a traffic violation.
And then I think originally the story, it was something, and it's always bogus.
Almost all the details you hear about these high profile police shootings, the initial details are almost always completely bogus.
Not even based on reality, but totally bogus.
So I think originally we heard something about He was pulled over for an air freshener?
So, the original story was that he was not only pulled over for it, but shot and executed for having an air freshener in his car.
That was the story that made its, made its, uh, and as we know the saying, you know, the lie makes all the way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
And so that was the lie in that case.
While the truth is struggling to get its pants on and get out there, the lie was that he was executed in cold blood.
For having a little Christmas tree air freshener hanging on his windshield, on his rearview mirror.
That was not true at all.
He was pulled over for a traffic violation, but then they discovered that he had an open warrant for his arrest.
And so that's why they tried to arrest him.
Not for a traffic violation.
But because he had an open warrant for his arrest.
And that's what you do with someone when they have an open warrant for their arrest.
Why did he have an open warrant for his arrest?
Well, he had it in connection with an incident where he allegedly pointed a gun at a woman and robbed her, attempted to rob her.
He also choked her and, according to the victim, stuck his hand down her shirt looking for a wad of cash, which is sexual assault, of course.
So, he sexually assaulted a woman, pointed a gun at her and tried to rob her.
That's why.
That's the crime that lays the bottom there of that arrest warrant.
So what are they supposed to do?
They pull someone over for a traffic violation, find out they have an arrest warrant, this is someone who's committed armed robbery.
Are the police supposed to say, well, hey, there's a warrant for your arrest, you're a dangerous person, but, you know, we pulled you over for something else, so we're gonna let this one slide, okay?
Is that what you think they should do?
Well, yeah, that's actually precisely what the defund the police crowd would prefer.
They'd prefer to let Dante Wright go and victimize another woman.
This continues that trend, that pattern, which is certainly not a coincidence.
It goes far beyond a coincidence when you have this pattern where almost all of the martyrs for BLM, especially in the last couple of years, not only are violent criminals, but in almost every case specifically, they target women.
Women are the targets of their violence.
And that was the case for Dante Wright.
So that's why they tried to arrest him.
He fought back, and they tried to tase him to bring him in, and she reached for the gun and shot him instead.
Now, we know that that happened.
We know it was a mistake because she says on camera, she says, basically says on camera that it was a mistake and she didn't mean to do it.
Legally, I don't know.
You know, I don't like her chances in court.
I think she's probably going to go to jail.
So we'll see.
But if it were up to me, if I was on that jury, would I send this woman to jail?
No, I would not.
I wouldn't send her to jail.
I look at this, I put this in a similar category to something like a medical error, you know?
A mistake that, now there can be medical errors that are made, there can be that are really malpractice, or a doctor or surgeon is being reckless, and if that happens then you have to litigate it.
But there are also hundreds of people or more who die every year, you know, in surgeries and that sort of thing, from medical errors, that where nothing reckless has happened.
It's just that this is a life or death situation.
Life is hanging in the balance.
And sometimes it can go the wrong way.
And it's a terrible mistake, but it doesn't mean you put someone in prison for it.
So, the point is, when you are a wanted felon, an alleged armed robber, And the police are trying to bring you in.
And they're trying to use peaceful means to do it.
And you start fighting them physically.
If a mistake happens in the process of that occurring, where you are physically fighting the cops as a wanted person, a violent felon, if a mistake happened, an error happens, I put that on you.
You could have avoided that easily.
You deserve to go to jail.
That's what should happen to you.
You don't have a right to resist and run away.
You pointed a gun at a woman and robbed her.
You need to face the music.
If you fight back because you don't want to face up to what you did, then you are taking your life into your hands.
You are putting yourself in a position where really bad things can happen.
Like a mistake.
And so I put the onus on you.
That's how I would see it on a jury.
That's what I would argue.
But I have no confidence that the jury here will argue the same.
Let's get now to our comment section.
All right, man, this cardigan is getting hot.
I don't know if this children's author deals for me if I have to wear the cardigan.
Then again, no one told me I had to wear the cardigan.
I just decided that that has to be the uniform.
By the way, if you go to dailywire.com slash shop right now and head to my merch store, my swag shack, which is what I'm calling it now.
Apologies in advance, but that is what I'm going to call it.
There's nothing you can do about it.
If you head to my Swag Shack, you'll find, and we'll show you this on the screen, but you'll find all of the great merch that I've already shown you, as well as a whole new section, a selection of Johnny the Walrus merchandise, such as a Johnny the Walrus shirt.
There's a sticker here with a protester with a sign that says, he, him, Walrux, which is the preferred Walrus pronouns.
Is this sort of just shameless capitalistic exploitation in a way with the merchandise?
Yeah, absolutely.
And I want to be clear also that none of the merch store money goes to charity.
It lines my pockets and The Daily Wire.
Marketing is not going to like this pitch.
I don't even know if this will make it on air.
And I'm partially kidding.
Of course, when you buy merchandise, you're supporting the mission, the fight, in a very real way.
But mostly, you're getting some great memes to wear.
You can wear our memes with pride.
And they are our memes, right?
We have a lot of memes on this show, and most of them were a team effort between me and you and the audience and the team here at Delaware.
Sweet Baby Gang, of course, is the prime example.
That's why you can't just blame me for that.
That was our collective brainchild.
It was the hideous monstrosity that arose out of our collectively dark and depraved mind.
So that's a lot of what you find there at the merch store, or rather the swag shack.
William Roby says, Matt, what are the good Jim Carrey movies and why?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I said that the Truman Show was his second to last good movie.
Maybe I should have said third to last, arguably.
Because I had in mind the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I haven't seen in many years, but I thought it was quite effective when I did see it.
It's an interesting movie.
It kind of captured a failed relationship really well.
Maybe had some interesting things to say about the nature of memory and relationships and so on.
So I'd put that.
And then there's also Me, Myself, and Irene, which came in between Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine, and that was serviceable, so maybe I'll give them that.
But the point is that Jim Carrey, you want to talk about someone that's been on a cold streak as an actor.
Maybe Robert De Niro gives Jim Carrey a run for his money and Al Pacino.
Those three guys putting out hit after hit.
The 90s, that was Jim Carrey's decade, everything he put out.
And then he gets in the 2000s and has put out almost nothing but garbage.
All right, let's see what else we got here.
Let's see, Leah says, no Matt, plants are not sentient and you know that.
You're not stupid.
Stop acting like vegans are so stupid for literally just being kind to animals.
Yes, you absolutely are the asshole.
I truly enjoy watching your show, but I strongly disagree with you when it comes to animals.
It's really sad that you think so little of them that you think it's completely fine to exploit and kill them unnecessarily.
Anyway, I continue to watch your content and stay subscribed because I connect to many of your other viewpoints, and at least you don't speak about your barbaric views on animal rights too often.
Well, don't tempt me, Leah, because now you're just ensuring that I will talk about it more.
No, first of all, it's not about thinking less of animals.
I do think less of animals as compared to people.
I think they are a lesser species than the human species.
We've talked about why.
And in fact, you do agree with me on that, even if you claim that you don't.
As I've pointed out, you know, if you see a dead person on the side of the road, you're going to react very differently than if you see a dead squirrel.
And why is that?
Because you care more about the person, which is good.
You should.
My only point about the plant life is that, okay, I'm engaging in this hierarchy of biological life.
I openly admit that I am.
I think it's a rational, logical thing to do.
I also think it's totally rational and logical to prefer your own species over another one.
There's something kind of despairing and suicidal about the people who prefer other species to their own.
But my point is, you're doing the same.
Because plant life, we call it, it is life, isn't it?
Trees, lettuce, everything in a salad.
You look down at a salad, you see a salad, I see a mass genocide.
With ranch dressing on top of it.
Okay.
Because that, that is also life.
And you have determined that that life is less valuable, less important than the life of say a chicken.
So you're doing this hierarchy thing.
And, uh, and so am I. So I don't see how you're any better.
So now, now it's really, it's not that I have a hierarchy and you don't, it's that we have competing hierarchies and we can have that conversation.
All right.
What else do we got here?
Um, Another one says, Matt, love the show.
Want to say that first.
My question is, how do you justify wanting to create culture and change elections and bash the left for doing so?
I don't mind the DW doing so since you're correct.
However, there does seem to be a bit of a double standard from you, whether justified or not, not for me to decide.
Personally, I'm more curious where you're coming from rather than a gotcha moment.
Have a good day, y'all.
Anyone else have thoughts?
I'd love to hear those.
Well, first of all, I feel like I have to ban you from the show for challenging me, but then being so nice and polite about it, which means I don't get to be angry in response.
So you've taken that away from me, and for that, you're banned.
As far as your question, yeah, it's just like what I said about indoctrination.
And I understand where the confusion comes from, because a lot of people on the right will say things like, and it's just kind of an intellectual laziness, or they're being lazy in the way they speak, They'll say things like, we're against indoctrination of kids and all that kind of thing.
No, the problem is not that kids are being indoctrinated.
It's what they're being indoctrinated into.
And when it comes to creating culture, I don't have a problem with the idea of creating culture.
Culture is good.
We should have a culture.
My issue is the kind of culture that is being created.
And in fact, on the left, the kind of culture they're creating is not even really a culture, it's more of an anti-culture.
It's like the absence, it's a vacuum, it's a void, it's the absence of culture.
And so what I think we need to do on the right is create culture, real culture, a good culture, an edifying culture, a culture that directs people towards fulfillment and their own well-being and the common good, that sort of thing.
So hopefully that clears it up, although you're still banned from the show.
Well, I'm not sure if I mentioned it yet, but I do have a kid's book out and this is the part where we do the DW promo and it just so happens to be my book that we're promoting.
So once again, I get to tell you about Johnny the Walrus, which is on sale right now at johnnythewalrus.com.
I will tell you that I've already seen The action has started on Twitter of the left calling for Amazon to ban this book, and I don't have a lot of confidence that it won't get banned, even though it's a lovely and a wonderful book with, I think, a great message about this young boy who has this identity of being a trans walrus foisted upon him by his confused mother, but at the end they see the light, so it's a happy ending.
There's a good chance this thing's gonna get banned, and that's a serious issue.
So, go and buy the book right now, johnnythewalrus.com.
If we get it all the way to the top of the charts, it makes it harder for them to ban it, and if they do, it's more visible when they do, which it ought to be.
So, johnnythewalrus.com.
Go there now.
Buy the book.
All right.
For our cancellation today, we turn our attention to a gender studies master's thesis composed by a student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Jonathan Kay is an editor at Quillette, and he first brought attention to this on his Twitter page.
The document had been available on the university's website, but has since been put under embargo, whatever that's supposed to mean.
What it actually means is that the university is embarrassed that the public took note of this, and so they took it out of the public viewing for that reason.
All I really need to do is read the first part of the introduction to this thesis.
No other commentary is necessary, though I will offer some anyway.
So here it is.
It's a little lengthy, but it's worth your time, so sit back and enjoy.
Here it is.
And this is all totally real, by the way, I assure you.
As a white first-generation college graduate who attended a mid-sized private university, my identities and experiences inspired this study.
My whiteness offers a level of inherent violence to this study because of the history of privilege and structural and overt acts of harm my ancestors have contributed to society.
This echoes my experience in identifying as an anti-racist racist who, as a white person, spelled with an X instead of an O, is inherently racist, but applies and is accountable to anti-racism in my life through activist, educator, and researcher capacities.
White supremacy is frequently misunderstood as only pertaining to overt or explicit acts of violence like neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan.
However, white supremacy in the context of this study centers the relationship between historical and unconscious bias that benefits whiteness through its structures, policies, culture, and experiences over non-white individuals.
Therefore, it is irresponsible for me to begin this study without acknowledging the privileges that I am afforded in conducting this study as a white individual, but also the contribution that I make to violence.
Like white supremacy in the academy, violence in the university shows up in different ways than what may be explicitly produced.
Violence in the context of this study includes interpersonal violence like slurs and ignorance, politics that disproportionately have a negative impact on marginalized identities or bodies, the hierarchical misuse of administrative power that make change seem impossible, and the lack of understanding and support given to the marginalized university community.
And that's just the first few sentences of the introduction.
It's good that they took the whole document off the website.
I don't know if you could read much more of that or hear much more of it without slipping irretrievably into insanity.
So let's go through this somewhat haphazardly and make four points in no particular order.
First, bookmark this podcast and remember that segment and come back to it.
This segment, in fact, that we're in right now.
And come back to it next time somebody demands that you define critical race theory.
Because what you just heard is critical race theory.
It's hard to define because it's a jumbled, unintelligible mess.
It's like being asked to describe in precise terms the contents of a port-a-potty.
You may not be able to break it all down in specific detail, but what you can say is that whatever is in there, it's a whole bunch of s**t. For critical race theory, the particulars are intentionally hard to discern and also irrelevant.
Whatever finer distinction it draws, we know that it teaches that white people are inherently racist.
That all non-white people are victims of systemic racism, that all white people are beneficiaries of systemic privilege, and that white people all bear guilt because of this, and that also, because of this, they cannot be the victims of racism.
Even if a black man beats a white man unconscious and spits on his lifeless body, still, that is not racism.
And arguably, it's not even violence.
Nothing can be racism against the white man.
That's what CRT teaches, as we just heard.
Second, notice how will and agency are removed from the equation.
According to the CRT vision of life, all of the fault lies with systems and institutions and policies and the past.
Whites inherit their guilt this way and non-whites inherit their victimization in the same way.
Nobody does anything.
Nobody's responsible for anything.
We're all helpless, dried-up little leaves floating on the wind.
The author even says that ignorance is violence, meaning that you can be guilty of violence simply for not knowing something.
No willful action is taken on your part.
You simply did not encounter certain information, and that makes you violent.
Again, there's no agency, there's no choice, there's no will.
Third, we see that CRT and leftism as a whole are a religion.
But of course, religion isn't bad in and of itself.
So I'm always kind of uncomfortable using religion in this kind of pejorative way.
Oh, it's just a religion.
I have a religion.
I'm religious.
The problem isn't that it's a religion.
The problem is that it's a false religion.
And you could tell a false religion because almost everything it says can only be understood within the context of itself.
Everything is insular, right, in a false religion.
Or in a cult, like Scientology or something.
It has no insight or wisdom to offer people who do not subscribe to it.
You have to be a believer to see the value or even meaning in any of this.
So, as I said, it's like Scientology.
They indoctrinate you into it little by little.
And there are a lot of reasons for that.
One of the reasons is that if you just dove into Scientology and they put you all the way up at level 7 or whatever the levels are, and they put you there right away, nothing that you're hearing would make any sense to you.
Because you have to be brought into it slowly and slowly until you kind of adopt the logic, which is an illogic, of this whole system.
But from the outside, it's completely ridiculous and has nothing of value to offer anybody.
Christianity, which is not a false religion, is not like that.
Christianity has wisdom, even if you're not religious, even if you don't believe in Christianity.
You can, and many people have, pick up the Gospels and read them, and you'll find much wisdom and insight into the human condition that you don't need to be a Christian to understand or even believe.
So that's the difference.
And finally, I think I said there were four things.
So the fourth thing is that, uh, this is what you get at college.
Okay.
I don't need to elaborate on that very much.
I have many times in the past.
This is college.
So if you, if you're a parent and you're thinking about sending your kid to college and plunging yourself or your child into decades of debt, this is what you're paying for to turn your kid into that.
And that is why we must say the person who wrote that thesis is cancelled, and gender studies programs are cancelled, and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is cancelled, and really the whole university system, I think, in the end, is cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
Remember again, johnnythewalrus.com.
Pick up the book.
Let's get it to the top of Amazon.
And we gotta do it.
We gotta do it now before it's banned.
So go right now.
The show is over.
Go to johnnythewalrus.com.
Pick up a book.
Pick up 10 books.
Give them to all your family members, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a
five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager, Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Ali Hinkle.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
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, Chris Cuomo from CNN is outed as a key figure in his brother's defense, despite the fact that he works at CNN.
