All Episodes
Feb. 16, 2022 - The Matt Walsh Show
01:02:41
Ep. 891 - BLM Assassin Joins Waukesha Killer In The Memory Hole

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an activist attempted to assassinate a politician in a major American city. This happened yesterday and already it is out of the news. You may have already guessed why but we’ll discuss today. Also, the new mayor of New York is getting a lot of props from people on the right, but he’s as much of a race hustler as any other Democrat. I’ll play a clip that proves that. And the CEO of YouTube did an interview where she called on governments across the world to pass more laws restricting speech. Plus, a bipartisan bill meant to protect children on the internet. I usually say that the worst kinds of bills are the bipartisan ones, but is this an exception to the rule? We’ll take a look. Finally, we will cancel a man who says that women who don’t want to see his penis in the locker room are misogynists. I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb  The world’s best-selling LGBT author (me) now has his own merch line: https://utm.io/uedoZ You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 Subscribe to The Daily Wire and stream our newest movie SHUT IN, already with a 100% critic score and a 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes: https://utm.io/uehf3 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, an activist attempted to assassinate a politician in a major American city.
This happened yesterday and already is out of the news.
You may have already guessed why, but we'll discuss today.
Also, the new mayor of New York is getting a lot of props from people on the right, but he's as much of a race hustler as any other Democrat.
I'll play a clip that proves that.
And the CEO of YouTube, Did an interview where she called on governments across the world to pass more laws restricting speech, plus a bipartisan bill meant to protect children on the Internet.
I usually say that the worst kinds of bills are the bipartisan ones, but is this an exception to the rule?
We'll take a look.
Finally, we'll cancel a man who says that women who don't want to see his penis in the locker room are misogynists.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Even if the Supreme Court were to strike down Roe v. Wade, abortion would still exist in America, it would still remain legal in many states, including the most populated states in the country, or most of them anyway.
Charity Mobile is the pro-life phone company.
They partner with you to automatically support the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice with 5% of your monthly planned price.
And they've sent millions of dollars to charities so far and will send millions more over the years ahead.
New activations and eligible accounts get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping.
When you mention offer code WALSH, certain restrictions apply.
Charity Mobile makes it easy to switch.
You can keep your existing phone number.
You might even be able to keep your existing phone.
But if you need a new phone, no problem.
Charity Mobile has a variety of options, from the latest 5G phones to low-cost smartphones and basic phones as well.
All of their monthly plans include unlimited domestic minutes and messages, and it can be shared by up to eight lines on a family plan.
There are no contracts, there are no termination fees, and no risk with their 30-day guarantee.
So switch to Charity Mobile and support the causes you care about.
Call them at 1-877- So, in May of 2021, a prominent BLM activist, black nationalist, and future attempted assassin, Quintez Brown, wrote another op-ed for the Louisville Courier-Journal titled, Louisville's Huge Police Budget is the Real Boogeyman Traumatizing Black People.
Now, in the piece, he talks about all the ways that he, as a black man, has suffered because of the police in his city.
And the best way to heal his trauma, he argues, and rescue the city from violence is to reduce the police budget.
And he claims that Louisville police are not good at preventing crime anyway, and so the best way to solve that problem is to give them fewer resources to work with.
It's actually a familiar argument, always coming from the same people who say that every problem in the education system can be solved by increasing the budget.
So, to review, if police aren't doing their jobs effectively, give them less money.
If teachers aren't doing their jobs effectively, give them more.
Striking logic, you must admit.
But this article from Brown was the last that he would write for the publication.
One of the first, back in 2019, was a lamentation about the lack of gun control in Kentucky and across the country.
Brown claimed that, quote, Kentucky's concealed carry law shows your life doesn't matter to gun-loving Republicans.
In between this article and his arrest this past weekend for trying to shoot and kill a white mayoral candidate in the city, Brown was intricately involved in BLM activism.
And he was honored for his activism, actually hailed by Barack Obama's foundation as a rising face in the social justice movement.
He became a member of the Youth Violence Prevention League, if you can believe it, and he was a local political candidate for Metro Council District 5.
So this guy got around.
A couple years ago he was given a platform on MSNBC where Joy Reid interviewed him about this same problem of gun violence.
Listen to this.
You're from the home state of the Senate Majority Leader.
What do you want him to know?
Well, I want you to know that, you know, we are here and we want common sense gun reform.
And if you're not going to give us that, then we're going to get everyone out here to vote and we're going to vote you out of office.
So if you want to keep your job, then, you know, give us what we not what we want, but what we need, what humans need.
We need common sense gun reform.
Get rid of assault rifles.
Come on, like.
Yeah.
When are you guys going to turn 18?
I turn 18 September 25th.
I'm already registered.
And you guys are making the connection that you believe that this is about being in the voting booth.
Definitely.
Emma Gonzalez, she already put an emphasis on it.
Because we do have some very inflexible congressmen, so maybe we won't get gun reform the next day.
But nonviolent direct action takes time.
It's not going to happen overnight.
So one thing that we can do is get people out here voting, because even if we don't get gun reform, we're going to vote the people in office out.
And we're going to vote people who want gun reform, who care about us.
We're going to put them in office.
Nonviolent direct action takes time.
And he gave it about, I don't know, 18 months before he started shooting people.
But Quintez Brown, he's tired of gun violence, he says.
So tired of it that he allegedly walked into mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg's office and shot at him at close range and missed every shot somehow.
Now, in fairness, Brown does say in the clip that he wants to get rid of assault rifles, whatever those are.
He doesn't say anything about a 9mm, which is what he used in his assassination attempt.
So, you know, talk about a loophole.
But no matter what sort of gun he used, the end result is that a prominent and celebrated black nationalist BLM activist tried to assassinate a politician in a major American city.
This happened yesterday morning, and it's already out of the headlines.
Because this is the part of the story that comes as no surprise.
It's the part of the story where the story disappears.
Already you can check the homepages of CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, etc.
All the usual suspects and find no mention at all anywhere of Quintez Brown.
The memory hole is dark and deep and it does not suck things into itself slowly like quicksand.
Instead it will obliterate unwanted facts and events in the blink of an eye.
The media, of course, has gotten very good at quickly and quietly snuffing out stories of black nationalists and BLM activists committing politically motivated murders because they've had a lot of practice.
It was only a few months ago that another member of this ideological group plowed his car into dozens of white people in a parade, intentionally targeting them, injuring over 60 people, killing six, including a child.
In Waukesha.
That story was on its way to getting tossed into the pit as soon as the race of the perpetrator was known.
And then when his politics came into focus, its fate was sealed.
But before Waukesha, and in the same year, a Capitol Police officer was murdered when a black nationalist named Noah Green rammed his car into a barricade and attacked cops with a knife.
Officer Brian Sicknick was not actually killed by rioters on January 6th, though you know his name because the media attempted to connect the two events.
But in this case, a Capitol Police officer was actually murdered by a political extremist.
Straight up murder.
You don't know his name.
It was William Evans, by the way, because his death was not useful to the narrative.
You also probably don't remember the so-called black Hebrew Israelites who shot up a Jewish deli in New Jersey.
It was only a couple of years ago.
Then got into a shootout with the cops, ultimately left six people dead.
Hopefully, though, you remember the extremists who assassinated five police officers with a sniper rifle at a BLM rally in Dallas in 2016.
Though the media is so effective at erasing these events from the public consciousness, that even that massacre seems to have been mostly forgotten by the public.
You know, we hear quite a lot about the looming threat of white nationalism, and yet the majority of murderers in this country are carried out by people who don't quite fit that description.
And even if we were to narrow the category down to ideologically or politically or racially motivated violence, still, most culprits don't exactly look like white nationalists.
BLM itself, and its various ideological cousins and offshoots, is by far and away the most dangerous and violent organization in America, second only to Planned Parenthood, perhaps.
BLM activists have been involved in targeted acts of violence, like this assassination attempt.
Also large-scale campaigns of brutal chaos and anarchy.
Entire neighborhoods and cities have been consumed by this whirlwind for days and weeks on end.
Now, violent political movements and organizations have always existed in this country and always will.
In this country and across the world and everywhere for all time.
As long as there's politics, as long as there's human society, there are going to be violent political movements and violent people.
Now, in some ways you might argue that BLM isn't much different from the ones that came before it or will come after it in that way.
But the difference, and what makes BLM so uniquely dangerous, is that it has systemic support.
We hear a lot about the problems in the system, systemic.
Well, it has systemic support.
It's propped up, encouraged, funded, facilitated by the most powerful institutions in the country.
Now, this is also why right-wing extremists, so-called, could never be as dangerous as BLM, even if they wanted to be.
And I'm sure that some of them do.
I'm sure some of them look at BLM and say, I wish we could do that.
But they can't.
Because no matter what they do, they can't get Amazon on their side, or Facebook, or the education system, or the government.
BLM has all of that.
And it has the media, of course.
And the media's most important job on BLM's behalf is to make sure that we all have very short memories.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, with the ever increasing numbers of car makes and models, it's now impossible
to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront.
Why go there and endure the torture of walking around and trying to find what you need and being asked all of these intimidating questions?
About cars, which are very intimidating for someone like me.
About the specifications of your vehicle, only to have the guy behind the counter order the parts on his computer anyway.
You could cut out the middleman and just do that yourself.
You have computers with access to rockauto.com at your home, in your pocket.
Rockauto.com is a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
You can go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything you might need, from engine control modules, brake parts, Tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
Whether it's your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and very easy to navigate.
And best of all, all of the prices are very affordable.
It's the best prices you're going to find anywhere.
So go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
And remember to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
All right, so we'll start with this.
Eric Adams is the new mayor of New York, and we could say that he's better than Bill de Blasio, which, I mean, which he is, but it's like, you know, it's like damning with faint praise.
It's like saying that a woman is hotter than Nancy Pelosi or something.
But he gets credit from the right.
For some reason.
Maybe part of it is because the bar has been so low.
In some ways this is the best job in the world is to come in right after Bill de Blasio.
The bar is at this point under the earth.
All you have to do is walk on the ground and you're getting over the bar.
You don't have to raise your legs up that high.
So part of it might be that.
Some of it is the Kind of the lip service that he's paid to law and order and everything else.
But the fact is that he's still firmly on the left.
And he attacks, he also goes after the left and he goes after Democrats, but he does it from the left.
So here's a good example.
This is the mayor of New York that even a lot of conservatives seem to like, lecturing the media yesterday.
On diversity.
Before we play this clip, even this clip, what I'm about to play for you, the reason that I saw this is because other conservatives on Twitter were sharing this and saying, yeah, go Eric Adams!
Because of this lecture on diversity in the media.
Let's listen to some of this.
I'm a black man.
That's the mayor.
But my story has been interpreted by people that don't look like me.
We got to be honest about that.
How many blacks are in the editorial boards?
How many blacks have determined how these stories are being written?
How many Asians?
How many East Indians?
How many South Asians?
Everybody talks about my government being diversified.
What's the diversification in the newsrooms?
So everybody go back with their predispositions, and my role as mayor is being interpreted- Okay, pause it there, pause it there for one second.
He says, where's the diversity in the newsrooms?
I mean, where are the black people and the Asian people in newsrooms?
I don't know, all over the place?
What are you talking about?
Newsrooms are actually pretty diverse.
But listen to what he says.
Like, why does it matter?
Okay, he's a black man who's the mayor.
We've noticed.
Great.
And he says that, well, but I need black people to be covering me because no one else can do it fairly.
And when he's giving a press conference, he wants the entire room to look like him.
And why is that?
Why do you need?
Why does it matter?
You know, whenever I see a headline or story in the media about me, I know that it's always going to be negative, but it doesn't really matter to me.
I don't check to see the race of the person.
Is this a white person?
Can they relate to my lived experience?
I know that no matter what they look like, it's going to be negative.
They're going to be tearing me apart.
So why exactly do you need them to look like you?
Let's keep listening.
Maybe Eric Adams will explain.
Role as mayor is being interpreted through the prisms of your realities and not mine.
So when you write stories, you're not writing stories for people who was almost homeless like me.
You're not writing stories for people who were arrested and beat by police officers.
You're not writing stories from those who are dealing with high crime.
You're writing from your prisms.
And I'm not saying this to attack, but my administration is going to be about saying the obvious that other people are uncomfortable with saying.
Discomfort is growth.
So I say that to all your owners of your papers, your editorials, diversify your newsroom so I can look out and see people that look like me and say, we're going to write stories based on the prisms that we have, based on the prism of this young man, based on the prism of being the first black woman that's the speaker or Jumaane Williams, based on the prisms of his realities.
It's not what we're getting.
That's not what we're getting.
And that's why I'm covered the way I'm covered.
And I'm not comfortable with it.
The negative headlines are because he's black.
And he's saying, look, I'm going to say the things that other people won't say.
I'm going to sit up here and talk tough, and I'm going to say things that other people aren't comfortable saying.
What are you talking about?
Everybody says this.
Calling for more diversity?
You know what?
I'm gonna tell it like it is, I'm gonna say the things that nobody will say, and here it is.
We need more diversity.
Dude, literally everyone, every person in front of a camera says that.
Except for me and like three other people, okay?
Everyone says that.
But why?
Why does it matter?
Why this obsession with, when I look out here, I don't see people who look like me.
Who cares if they look like you or not?
Difference does that make?
How does that affect their ability to cover you fairly or unfairly?
Well, because he says that if you're white, his exact wording, you're writing through the prism of your reality and not mine.
Well, yes, that's true.
See, the problem, Eric, is that's the only way that any of us can engage with the world.
That's the only way that any of us can do anything.
We are all operating within, as you say, the prism of our own reality.
Now, that doesn't mean we all get our own reality.
We don't all get our own truth.
But we are all coming from our own perspectives.
That's the only perspective we can have.
It's the only one available to us.
Unless you have split personality disorder and you have multiple perspectives bouncing around in your head.
Most of us who are not mentally ill have just the one.
That's it.
We're all conscious beings and we have our own perspective.
But there's still one shared reality.
And so the goal of everybody should be to better understand The reality that we're all a part of.
And to sort of hone your perspective so that it comports with reality.
And that it is based in reality.
What he's saying is that you have really no right to talk about him unless you have his perspective.
Which, number one, there's the assumption that everybody with his skin color has exactly his perspective on life, which is incredibly degrading, demeaning, and dehumanizing.
That assumption, and we know, of course, it's not accurate.
I'm assuming, he says he wants people that look like him in the newsroom covering him.
I'm guessing that if Candace Owens walked in there, he would say, well, no, not her.
I don't want her.
Someone else who looks like me.
But also the incredibly arrogant assumption that everyone has to adopt your perspective on reality just because it's yours?
And they can't say anything about you unless they have your perspective exactly?
Of course, there's a lot of that kind of thing going around today, and we'll get into some of that again in the Daily Cancellation.
I've had this clip for a few days, and we haven't played it.
We'll play it now.
I've just been waiting.
I've been waiting for an opportunity.
Whenever we get to a chance where we're dumping on Eric Adams, we'll just throw this in as well.
Because here he is a couple of days ago, not quite as important, but he's speaking out about the value of plant-based diets, because this is an important thing that we need the mayor of New York to be talking about.
Let's listen to that.
You brought up your eating habits.
I just want to clarify something.
How often do you eat fish and do you eat any other animal proteins?
I eat a plant-based centered life.
Some people want to call me vegan.
Vegans eat Oreos and they drink Coca-Cola.
I don't.
I eat a plant-based centered life.
And those who are the food police for me, they can food police all the time.
I eat a plant-based centered life.
So you eat fish?
I eat a plant-based centered life.
And I'm not going down that... Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Please don't do that yelling out stuff with me.
I don't do it to you, don't do it to me.
I did a plant-based, scented life.
And I'm not going down this rabbit hole of what do you eat if you eat cake and it has eggs in it that you analyze it.
I'm not doing that.
The more plant-based you eat, the better and healthier you are.
That is my question to those who are following me around in restaurants, wondering what I'm ordering.
Listen, I'm not doing that.
That's noise to me.
I gotta get New Yorkers to eat a plant-based, scented life.
To eat what again?
I didn't catch it.
He didn't mention it enough times.
What was it?
Oh, a plant-based centered life.
What is with the mayors of New York, by the way, and their obsession with controlling what people eat?
I mean, he's certainly not... It seems to be a sickness that they all... There's something there in Town Hall.
I don't know what it is.
Some kind of virus.
And as soon as they become mayors, they think it's their business to tell everyone what they should be eating.
So he has a plant-based centered life.
By the way, I'm glad we played that clip because Perfect follow-up to the thing before it.
This guy's complaining about the way the media covers him as if they're so hard on him.
This is what you're complaining about?
Their question was, tell us more about your diet, Mayor.
Hey, Mayor, say, I've heard you like salads.
Can you tell us more about that?
Those are the difficult questions you're whining about?
By the way, plant-based centered life veganism is completely unnatural.
It's really, in many ironic ways, the most inorganic way to live.
We're not built, we're not made to eat only vegetables, to eat a plant-based centered life.
Our teeth aren't the way they are so that we can only chop on celery and lettuce.
We are supposed to be omnivores.
We eat meat and vegetables.
If all human beings through history, going back into time, led plant-based centered lives, then the human race would be extinct.
We wouldn't exist anymore.
So, maybe that's not a coincidence.
Vegans, they're proposing a way of life, which, by the way, is very privileged.
Veganism only exists among the most privileged and wealthy people.
It is, just like gender theory, gender ideology, just like so many other things, critical race theory, it's another invention of the left that can only exist in the context of white Western privilege.
Because you go anywhere else in the world, go to any third world country, you go anywhere else, you see the way other people live, this is not an option.
Okay, they're living off of cows and livestock, they have to hunt.
If they tried to lead a plant-based center life, they would die.
So, if everyone becomes vegan, then within three months, three billion people are probably dead, because they would starve to death.
And if everyone was always vegan from the beginning of time, then none of us would be here.
Maybe that's not a coincidence.
Veganism is, this is my conspiracy theory, veganism is a population control tactic.
It's anti-human, it's wrong, and it's stupid.
That's my position.
Alright, moving on.
I want to play this for you.
The CEO of YouTube was interviewed, I'm not sure what show she was on.
This is quite troubling in a number of ways and it should be getting more headlines than it is.
But she was interviewed and here she is talking about the ways that YouTube will suppress speech at the behest of the government.
She wants to suppress speech, but her point is that she needs the government, she needs governments around the world to help her and sort of team up with her in this effort to suppress speech.
Let's listen to that.
We work around the globe, and you're right, certainly there are many different laws and many different jurisdictions, and we enforce the laws of the various jurisdictions around speech or what's considered safe or not safe.
That's true for democratically elected governments.
It might get a little bit more complicated in non-democratically elected governments.
And for the most part, you know, so basically we enforce those laws.
That actually hasn't been the controversial part.
What has been the controversial part has been when there is content that would be deemed as harmful, but yet is not illegal.
So an example of that, for example, would be COVID.
I'm not aware of there being laws by governments saying around COVID in terms of not being able to debate the efficacy of masks or where the virus came from or the right treatment or proposal, but yet there was a lot of pressure and concern about us distributing misinformation that went against what was considered the standard and accepted medical knowledge.
And so this category of harmful but legal has been, I think, where most of the discussion has been.
And for us, we look at that content and we think about the role that we play in society.
We want to be doing the right thing for our users and for our creators.
We also generate revenue from advertisers.
And if we are serving content that is seen by our advertising community as not benefiting No advertisers are going to want to appear on that.
And they're certainly not going to even want to appear on a different content that is positive if they think the platform as a whole is not being responsible.
So we are generally very aligned.
Responsibility is really good for our business.
And we have over 2 million creators on our platform that we share revenue with.
So if we're not generating revenue for them, Then, you know, that's a problem for our creators.
They create, you know, beautiful and incredible content and we share the majority of revenue with them.
So yeah, so basically that's like, you know, so I think governments like can always, you know,
our recommendation of governments want to have more control over online speech is to pass laws,
to have that be very cleanly and clearly defined such that we can implement it.
Well, I had to get all the way to the end there to that part, 'cause that was important.
First of all, I agree with some of what you said about YouTube creators making beautiful and amazing content.
Like for example, this content.
So I appreciate that, Susan, thank you for that.
But notice also, she says that it's really pretty troubling on a number of levels.
She says that, of course, we want to get rid of content that's harmful, which is, as always, an extremely broad category.
And you want to talk about operating through your own prism, the prism of your reality, as Eric Adams says.
That's going to depend very much on the prism of your reality, what you consider to be harmful.
And so you put that into the terms of service and say, oh yeah, we'll allow all speech unless it's harmful.
And what's harmful?
Literally whatever we say is harmful is harmful.
In whatever way.
It doesn't matter.
It's totally up to us.
But then she goes so far as to say that we want to make sure that the content benefits society.
And makes the rather hilarious claim that advertisers are worried about benefiting society.
That advertisers only want to be associated with things that benefit society.
And we know, of course, when it comes to marketing departments and, you know, I've been in marketing meetings before and that's, of course, in every marketing advertising meeting, the first thing anyone talks about is how is this going to benefit society, right?
If by society we just mean like their bottom line, that's the only thing, of course, they're worried about.
So we want to make sure that the content benefits society, she says, but And she's very willing and eager to suppress content that does not quote benefit society or is not harmful, but it's helpful for her if governments will pass laws and give her that cover.
And so she's asking.
She's asking governments of the world to pass laws ostensibly restricting her and her company.
She wants those laws because it gives her the cover she needs to suppress the content.
So there is this unholy matrimony between big tech and governments of the world, which is why this is not a simple issue of private property.
This is not a simple issue of private businesses.
being able to control their own business and decide who they do business with and who they associate with.
That applies exactly to the situations where the left refuses to apply it, like for example,
small independent bakeries in Colorado who don't want to make gay wedding cakes, okay?
A small bakery in Colorado who says to a gay couple, "I will sell you anything in the store."
You can have anything you want.
You can even have a wedding cake.
What I can't do is make a customized wedding cake where I put the two little male figures on top of the wedding cake.
That I can't do.
I could sell you the cake, you could go somewhere else and get the little figurines and put it on there, or you can go to any of the 50 other bakeries within a 5-mile radius and get exactly what you want.
Now, that situation, which of course is not a hypothetical situation, that's the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, Uh, that is a totally private business who should have the ability and the right to decide who they associate with and who they do business with and what kind of business they do.
And if they say, we're a bakery and we make different kinds of customized cakes, but we don't make cakes for gay weddings, they should have the right to do that.
Now the left though says, oh, that doesn't cause that's a, you know, this is a, uh, This is an accommodation, this is a service that everyone has a right to, and it causes great damage to the gay couples if they're not able to get the service that they want at this particular bakery.
But then when it comes to YouTube, a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, now they say, oh, it's a private business, they can do what they want.
It is exactly reversed.
The bakery has no institutional power.
It has no relationship with government.
In fact, the government is against the bakery.
There's like this conspiracy of governments on every level, from the local to the state to federal, trying to take down Masterpiece Cake Shop.
They've been doing it for years now.
So they have no power from the government.
There's no relationship there.
And also, no harm is really done on a societal level if a gay couple can't get one particular type of cake from this one particular bakery.
Over on YouTube though, or Facebook or Twitter, you have extraordinarily powerful institutions That are in direct conversation with the government.
There's this alliance between.
These are not independent institutions anymore.
There's this alliance between them and the government.
And what's the penalty if these supposed private businesses decide that they don't want to do business with you?
With the bakery, the penalty is, okay, you just got to go down the shop to another bakery and get exactly the same cake you wanted and you're fine.
So it's a slight inconvenience.
But with YouTube and Facebook and Twitter, if they decide they want to de-platform you, they are erasing you from the modern public square, which is on the internet.
They are taking your voice out of the conversation.
They are erasing your perspective and your opinion, and they're depriving you of the ability to participate in the national conversation, so-called.
Which is why the private business thing shouldn't apply to them.
It's a very different sort of situation.
All right, let's go right into this.
I think it's an interesting follow-up.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, A bill with bipartisan support will be introduced in the Senate on Wednesday that would require social media companies to add additional steps to protect children under the age of 16.
The Kids Online Safety Act, co-sponsored by Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn and Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal seeks to increase safety standards in the wake of child safety concerns.
The proposed bill requires social media platforms to provide a safe default environment and to help prevent potentially destructive impacts.
A statement from Blumenthal's office says the legislation also requires independent audits and supports public scrutiny from experts and academic researchers to ensure that parents and policymakers know whether social media platforms are taking meaningful steps to address risks to kids.
Blackburn added, protecting our kids and teens online is critically important, particularly since COVID increased our reliance on technology.
Let's see, Blumenthal also highlighted the importance of internet safety as a top priority for children.
He said the Kids Online Safety Act would finally give kids and their parents the tools and safeguards they need to protect against toxic content and hold big tech accountable for deeply dangerous algorithms.
Now, this is another thing, you know, the people who say that we can't put any restrictions on YouTube, There are people that talk about private businesses and what sort of restrictions we should have on them.
Now we have a breakdown here and there's a lot of inconsistencies with what kind of rules can we put in place for children.
What I would say there is, first of all, I think we have to acknowledge, number one, this is my only problem, my only issue with trying to make social media safer for kids.
My only issue with it.
Is that social media is inherently dangerous for kids, so there is no way to actually make it safer.
It's an unsafe thing to do.
So if you have your 15 year old on Instagram or TikTok, yeah, it could be safer than it is right now because right
now they're subjected to just this, it's like a broken sewage line spraying directly
in their face every time they go on the internet. And they have access to all of the
worst content in the world, bombarding them at the speed of light, right?
So it could be better, but it can never actually be safe.
So I go back to the analogy of, you know, it's like recommending that a drunk driver put their seatbelt on, It's safer if you're going to drink and drive.
It's definitely safer to have your seatbelt on, but it's not a safe activity.
The better thing is just to not drink and drive in the first place.
And the better thing for kids is to not let them on social media to begin with.
Really keep them away from the internet as much as possible.
But the reality is that a lot of parents are allowing this, even though they shouldn't.
And so can we make the internet a little bit safer for kids?
I think obviously we should.
And so there are two categories.
You know, there's restrictions put in place to protect adults from so-called harmful content.
And then, as I said, there's always this subjective nature of, well, what do you mean by harmful exactly?
That's one conversation.
But with kids, you know, society has a special duty to protect children.
And this is a responsibility that almost all societies throughout history have recognized without even really needing to talk about it.
It's only in modern society where this is a discussion, where we actually have to talk about whether we should do that or not, whether we should protect kids.
We're in a position right now where an eight-year-old kid can just go on the Internet, And go to Google and in two seconds he is bombarded with all of the worst filth.
I mean the kinds of images and things and ideas and acts that even adults prior to modern age never would have encountered.
And a kid at eight is exposed to this stuff.
And continually exposed to it.
All through his formative years.
And we're so stupid that we actually have a conversation about whether we should do anything to try to prevent that from happening.
We actually have a conversation about whether there should be any laws in place at all to control these companies and to make sure they put safeguards in place so that at least eight-year-olds aren't exposed to this filth.
We shouldn't need to talk about it.
Of course there should be laws, and I think this is a good start.
All right.
Here's the latest on the Kim and Kanye drama from BuzzFeed.
I don't know why I'm reading this, but we'll read some of it.
It says, fans are expressing concern on social media after Kanye West leaked some distressing messages, allegedly from Kim Kardashian.
But I'm reading this because everyone's talking about this, and so I assume it must be important.
Because people on the internet don't talk about anything that isn't important, I've learned.
But before we get into fans' responses, here's a quick reminder of how we reached this point, says BuzzFeed.
As I'm sure you're aware, Kim filed for divorce from Kanye, who legally changed his name to Ye.
Did he?
Way back in February 2021, citing irreconcilable differences, the pair, who share four children together, their names are North, Saint, Chicago, and Song, This sounds like coordinates on a map.
That doesn't sound like names of the kids.
kids, appeared to be functioning amicably as co-parents in the initial wake of the split.
However, things took a turn a few months down the line in October after.
Okay, who cares?
So what's the latest on this?
I guess Kim Kardashian is sending Kanye West messages because Kanye West has been going
after Kim because she's, as I'm talking about this, I'm wondering why.
Kim Kardashian is dating Pete Davidson, the SNL guy, and Kanye West is dating some other
chicks, some model.
And Kanye West doesn't like Pete Davidson.
So Kim Kardashian has been messaging Kanye saying, please stop talking about this publicly.
And then Kanye proceeds to post all of those text messages on Instagram of his wife, his ex-wife, begging him to keep everything private.
And so it's been a big topic of conversation, people taking both sides of it.
Here's what I'll say about this.
A couple of general principles.
And the first is, there is very rarely a clear-cut good guy in a marital dispute.
I'm not saying there never is.
I mean, there are certainly occasions where one person in the relationship is obviously the villain, and you can pin the blame on him or her for why everything fell apart.
That's the case sometimes.
But most of the time it isn't.
And you can tell that this is the case because if you've ever been in the proximity of a relationship that's falling apart and maybe you're getting the gossip from one member of that relationship and they're telling you everything and you're thinking, oh, this other person's a scumbag.
I had no idea.
And then you think at some point to talk to the other person, and you hear their side of it, and you're thinking, well, okay, well, there's a lot of details there that the other person left out.
That's almost always the way that it goes.
Because human relationships are very complicated.
And when you've got two people, they're married, they've lived together for a long time, things start going sour.
It takes two people to get married, and usually it takes two people for the marriage to fall apart.
It usually takes the consent of both people in some way.
And normally that's because when you listen to both sides, you realize that, oh, both of these people are selfish a-holes.
Both of these people are incredibly selfish, were only focused on themselves the entire time, and that's why everything fell apart.
I suspect that's probably the case here.
In fact, I'm quite certain it is, because they, I don't know all the particulars of their relationship, But before you go on the internet and take sides in something like this, which is a stupid thing to do, even when you know the people, it could be stupid because you don't know everything that went on in that relationship, but when you don't know them and their celebrities, it's even dumber to take sides, especially in this case, because here's what we know.
They have four kids and they got divorced.
So that's strike one against them.
You know, you have kids now.
Really, once you get married, the deal should be sealed because you've made that pledge to your betrothed in sickness and health for life.
And you get divorced and you're breaking that promise.
But when you have four kids, then you just got to suck it up.
And if you go through a rough spot in your marriage, that's just something that you deal with.
You go to counseling or something.
Instead of throwing your kids into this turmoil.
So they've both done that.
And also, they both immediately went and found other people and are parading around in public with this other person, while their kids are watching and aware of all of it.
Kanye West is doing that, Kim Kardashian is doing that.
So, there are no good guys here, I'm afraid to say.
All right, let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Hey, dailywire.com/sweetbabycomments if you want to leave a video comment.
We have a comment here taking issue with my stance, I think, on sandwiches.
Let's listen to that first.
Hey, sweet daddy Wallace.
Just wanted to say I totally agree that Jersey Mike's absolutely at the top of the chain sandwich restaurant chain, but I disagree where you put Arby's on the list.
Arby's should absolutely be number two on the list.
It should go Jersey Mike's, Arby's, and then Jimmy John's.
If you don't agree with me, cancel me, bro.
SPG for life.
Well, yeah, thanks for that.
I mean, it is an important conversation.
You know, normally I'm very quick to ban anyone from the show for being wrong.
You are wrong, but you've erred on the right side, I think.
You've erred on the pro-Arby's side, and so that's acceptable.
I will allow that.
I was ready to get very upset when you first started talking about Arby's because I thought you were going to tell me, as many people have, that they don't even deserve to be in the conversation for Best Sandwich Chain.
And I find that deeply offensive.
I mean, Arby's is, number one, takes sandwich chains out of it.
When it comes to just sort of like fast food drive-through, the kind that you might see a sign for when you're going down the highway.
I put Arby's at the top of that list, certainly above McDonald's, Wendy's, I put them above all that.
You always know there's a certain consistent quality with Arby's that you always know you're going to get.
So if you want to put them up higher on the list, I'm not going to take issue with that, actually.
So I won't ban you from the show.
I mean, you are wrong.
Because it's still superior when you can go into the sandwich chain and you can actually watch them assemble the sandwich, and then you're not going to have the same sogginess and stuff with the bread and everything.
But now we're getting into particulars, but that's fine.
All right, let's go to clip nine here.
Hey, Matt.
I'm so glad my husband listens to your show.
This is my Valentine's gift.
I was so excited.
I instantly knew who gave me the idea.
Sweet baby game for life.
So she's holding, this is a happy wife with a very attentive and romantic husband who has given her apparently 409 cleaner, some Clorox wipes, and then, I can't tell what she's, oh, some rubber gloves, some cleaning supplies.
So, look, you can tell from her expression.
This might be the smile of a woman who just, if you were to pan the camera a little bit, you would see her husband dead on the floor and his blood is spoiling on the floor.
Maybe that's why she has the rubber gloves there, because she's cleaning it up.
That might be the smile we're seeing there.
I don't know.
But look, women, if I've learned anything, as you know, I've been married for 10 years.
I'm a love guru.
I'm an expert in this.
Women, they spend a lot of time in the kitchen, spend a lot of time cleaning.
And when it comes to gifts, They always value practicality.
So that's why, you know, they don't want jewelry.
What are you gonna do with jewelry?
What are you gonna do with flowers?
They want things that they can use.
Vacuum, toaster, cleaning supplies.
Take it from me.
All right.
This is from TwoSidesOneStone says, I never understood the sticks and stones narrative ever since I was a child.
Physical assault slash abuse is proven to be far easier to overcome than psychological abuse.
We have a need for more and better psychologists for a reason while physical therapists are a dime a dozen.
It's a coward's way out to pass the responsibility on to the child because the adult doesn't have the guts to discipline children or approach parents of other children.
You're being bullied, not me.
Here's a catchy tune so I don't have to do anything.
Now leave me alone.
Then kids commit suicide and no one saw it coming.
Shifting blame yet again.
Okay.
First of all, I would take the abuse of a child by an adult.
We're going to put that into, obviously, I think into a separate category here.
If a child is is the victim of a sustained abuse by an adult, then no one is going to look at that child and say, sticks and stones, right?
Of course.
What we're talking about is the kind of run-of-the-mill things that you run into as a human being in the world.
An adult with another adult who says something mean to you, or as a child when you're at school and kids say mean things to you.
That's just part of being a human being.
And that's where the sticks and stones rhyme I think actually does apply.
It's a good reminder and it's true.
Now you say kids commit suicide at alarming rates and they do.
And oftentimes we link that to bullying at school and that sort of thing.
But kids don't commit suicide because of words that are said to them.
There's not a direct causal link there.
Or at the very least, you're leaving something out, a really important ingredient.
They commit suicide because of the weight that they put on those words.
The weight that they put on the approval of their peers.
That's why we're seeing this uptick in childhood suicide.
And I say uptick because, you know, 60, 70 years ago, this kind of thing, it almost never happened.
You just didn't hear about it happening.
And now it's quite common.
And why is that?
Kids these days depend on their peers' approval to a really obsessive, overwhelming degree.
And I don't blame the kids for that.
It's not their fault.
They didn't create the society that they're in now.
But they're thrust into an environment.
First of all, many of them, they go to school and they're with their peers physically for, you know, six or seven hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year for 12 or 13 years.
So they spend most of their time with their peers and they feel like it's almost survival.
They need their peers to approve of them.
And kids also, they're not very good at looking at things long term.
Adults aren't good at it either.
So a kid, you know, you might tell him that, hey, look, you're going to graduate high school.
You're never going to see most of these people ever again.
And a lot of the bullies are going to look back 10 years after you graduate and their lives are miserable and everything.
You can tell them that, but they just can't see that.
All they see is what's right in front of them and this environment that they're in every day.
And so they need the approval of the people they spend all this time with.
And then you add to that the Internet and social media, where even after they leave the physical school building, They're still in this peer culture.
They still carry their friends around with them in their pockets, and they can't escape it ever.
And it becomes suffocating.
It's overwhelming.
And because they depend so much, then, psychologically on their peers' approval, when they get mean comments, when that approval is taken away from them, it becomes this catastrophe.
The point of Sticks and Stones is to emphasize, though, that a person's words only have the power that you give it.
So there is an important message there.
That, yeah, a person might say something mean to you, and they might want to hurt you, but it can only hurt you if you care about that person's opinion.
If you choose to put weight on that person's words, that's the only way you can be hurt by what they say to you.
And it's the reason why people say mean things to me all the time, and none of it hurts me, because I don't care what any of them think.
Their opinions mean nothing to me.
And that's the point of the message.
If somehow you missed the world premiere of Shut In this past weekend, head to dailywire.com/subscribe
to get a membership.
Today, the film is now exclusively streaming for Daily Wire members and currently has a
critic score of 100% and an audience score of 97%.
So this is wide acclaim from both critic and audiences, which is pretty rare these days.
We are creating more and more great entertainment without a leftist agenda, and it's all thanks
to our Daily Wire members.
You guys make this possible.
So head to dailywire.com/subscribe today so you can watch Shut In.
And then we've also got other movies coming out.
Hyperion, Gina's new movie coming out this summer.
All of that is available.
Go to dailywire.com/subscribe.
subscribe.
And the best way to fight the insidious attack on America is to expose the source from within.
Introducing one of The Daily Wire's newest projects, The Enemy Within, our new series featuring acclaimed journalist and expert in national threats, Lee Smith.
In the show, Smith uncovers a political coup orchestrated by America's ruling elites to generate their own wealth and power at the expense of the American people's safety and freedom.
From Fauci to our educational system to Hollywood and everything in between, each episode will take you deep into what's going on behind the scenes What those who are supposed to be protecting you don't want you to know.
Check out the trailer.
What if everything we think we know about our leaders, our society, and our relations with the rest of the world is wrong?
America is facing two major challenges.
One is the Chinese Communist Party.
However, the most significant threat comes from within.
You're trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world.
Okay, Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.
We've already seen evidence of how the elites want to run the United States.
They're modeling themselves after Chinese autocracy.
For over a decade, the People's Republic of China has stood publicly accused of acts of cruelty and wickedness that match the cruelty and wickedness Of many evil torturers and executioners.
Diane Feinstein had a Chinese spy as her driver for 20 years!
We're not talking about one person infiltrating senior levels at the CIA or the White House.
We're talking about an entire elite class throughout the political, corporate, academic, cultural, and media establishment.
My name is Lee Smith.
I've been a journalist for more than 30 years.
This is the most astonishing espionage and infiltration operation in history.
What you're going to see in this series will shock you.
This is The Enemy Within.
The Enemy Within will start streaming this Friday, February 18th exclusively on Daily
So, if you're not a member, now's the time to change that.
Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join us today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel a gentleman by the name of James Rose.
Sorry, I suppose I should refer to him as Gentleman rather than Man because he identifies as a they, as multiple people.
On his website, James says that he is a gender-fluid actor living in New York City and also includes this note.
James writes about gender liberation, eating disorders, trauma, sex, their feelings, and their exes on Instagram where they intend to leave the world a little better than they found it.
Because, you know, there's no better way to improve the world than by talking about your feelings on Instagram.
But James is not just a gender-fluid actor and Instagram diarist.
He's also a self-described gender educator.
Now, you may have noticed that literally anyone can describe themselves as an educator these days, which is no surprise, because literally anyone can describe themselves as literally anything these days.
No labels have any meaning.
Words are all empty in this utopia of ours.
So shoot for the moon.
I mean, speaking of which, I'm going to start describing myself as an astronaut.
In fact, I'm a gender astronaut.
What does that mean?
Well, it's up to me to decide.
Your job is to listen and nod your head respectfully, as if you know what the f*** I'm even trying to say.
That brings us back to James, who, in his role as gender educator, will often post TikTok videos lecturing cis women, as he calls them, about all of their many failures and foibles.
Most recently, he posted a video explaining to women that they're not allowed to feel uncomfortable when penises are flying around in front of their faces in the locker room.
Listen to him.
A lot of cis women share this sentiment and I do want to break it down.
This may be uncomfortable to sit through and to listen to and I think that's why it's important that we do this.
Feeling like trans people are a threat to you in a space like a bathroom or a locker room is actually a version of internalized misogyny.
Which is not necessarily your fault because it's impossible to divorce our socialization from the prevalence of patriarchy.
But it also does mean it's our responsibility to unlearn it for the safety of fellow women, especially trans women.
In my experience as a gender educator, the majority of cis women who have experienced violence at the hands of men, or just patriarchy, or living in today's world, See anything that codes to them as remotely masculine, male, etc.
and fear it.
Which in many ways is a survival tactic that makes sense.
The difference is when we code trans people as the wrong gender, we're actually doing them way more a disservice than we are protecting ourselves because you're ostracizing and further alienating trans people.
The false media narrative and trope around trans people is that we are predators that are tricking people into
thinking that we're something that we're not, which is of course not true.
Watch the documentary Disclosure on Netflix if you want more on that.
So being uncomfortable with trans people in your space is something that you were taught, and you can unlearn that.
It's important to recognize that we can't tell someone's gender by their presentation, by their genitals, by the way
that they look.
All of that can be changed, all of that is arbitrary, none of that is central to your identity necessarily.
You know, if the word mansplaining has any application at all, that would have to be it, I think.
So let me translate.
Here's what our friend James is saying to the ladies out there.
He's saying, shut up, you stupid girls, and let him get naked in front of you.
And people like this often get away with saying the most hideous things and being absolute tyrannical bullies and predators because, for one thing, they're in an approved victim group, but also because of this grating, irritating, faux-compassionate tone they use.
Now, any semi-aware person can recognize that this smug little bastard is being condescending and patronizing as hell, and that he's doing it in an effort to emotionally blackmail women into allowing men to sexually harass them.
But the dumber, non-aware people, a large demographic in this culture these days, unfortunately, will hear this and they'll say, well, he sounds like he's being nice, we should listen to whatever he says.
The interesting thing is that James' message, which is often the message of trans activists, is that your feelings as a woman are not valid.
He all but comes out and says that.
Your feelings don't matter.
You need to change your feelings.
In fact, he knows more about your feelings than you do.
He's conducted a therapeutic diagnosis of all the women in the country all at once, and he's decided that your discomfort with strange penis in a locker room is internalized misogyny.
Did you get that?
So if you as a woman do not want to see him as a male get naked in front of you, you are a misogynist.
You are now essentially the man in that exchange, not him, and he is the victim of your misogyny.
This is coercion of the most twisted kind, all in an effort to compel women to sit quietly while men expose themselves.
Louis C.K.
was cancelled with righteous fury by the mob when he exposed himself in front of women, except that in his case, he asked for permission ahead of time.
Doesn't make it okay, but he did.
Still, it was argued that even with consent, there was implicit coercion because of the power that he had over the women in the interaction.
Well, what about men who do not ask for permission before exposing themselves and who apply explicit coercion to shame women into silence and acquiescence?
By the standard already applied to many high-profile men in much more ambiguous circumstances, these guys are our sex predators.
Now, the simplified view of our cultural ethos is that feelings are given first priority.
Feelings matter above all else.
I've often said this myself, as recently as yesterday.
And it's true, but the statement needs qualification, because it's more accurate to say that some people's feelings matter above all else.
If feelings in general were given pride of place, then James Rose would be roundly condemned by everybody for recording videos lecturing women about the illegitimacy of their feelings.
He's allowed to do this because his feelings as a member of the LGBT camp are of utmost importance.
Primary importance.
But the feelings of a woman, especially a white cisgender woman, quote-unquote, don't necessarily rank at all.
And when her feelings are made to contest with the feelings of the sacred alphabet people, her feelings are then ascribed a negative value.
Her feelings aren't just unimportant, they're bad, they're shameful.
They are a sin that must be punished, a disease that must be cured.
See, if the left put an overemphasis on everybody's feelings, and they were obsessively concerned with making sure that nobody ever felt sad or uncomfortable, that would still be bad and dangerous in its own way, but at least we could call them well-intentioned.
We could even say that their problem is an overabundance of compassion, or a kind of misdirected, misappropriated compassion.
Either way, they would be good people.
They'd be nice people.
A little bit too nice.
Just misguided.
That's not the case, though.
On balance, it turns out that they care less about feelings than even I do.
Because there's only a very select group of people whose feelings rank at all, and everybody else can go to hell, they say.
Let's look at one more clip from James as he now responds to some of the comments taking issue with the video we just played.
Listen to this.
Steve caught me at the time when I'm not feeling diplomatic, and I'm just gonna yell.
This is a horrible comment.
And I don't need to defend any of my behavior, aka walking down the street as a frickin' non-binary woman, but I'm gonna!
Feeling uncomfortable with trans people walking down the street is just your transphobia.
Because as a fellow femme, I understand the danger and the terror and the fear of walking around on the street, especially at night.
I live in New York City.
Don't even get me started.
And because I'm aware of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of that as a femme and as a non-binary woman, when I see another potentially feminine-presenting person in front of me, I will say things like, coming behind on your left, or just don't want to scare you, coming behind on your right, something that lets them know that I'm there so they don't feel fear.
And I do this as a courtesy on the off chance they misgender me and think I'm a man.
That's just camaraderie and looking out for each other.
The fact that you feel like I would be unsafe on the street is literally just a coding for I don't conceptualize you as a non-binary person or as a woman.
I don't need that energy on my page.
Get out.
So somehow we've gone from talking about locker rooms to walking down the street.
I'm not sure when that shift in the conversation happened, but even so, first of all, note how he, a male, identifies as a non-binary woman.
Now, non-binary, if it means anything at all, which it doesn't, means that someone is not a man or a woman.
So he, a male, is also a woman, but also neither a man nor a woman, but also a man.
And not only does he hold this incoherent jumble of self-identities in his confused head, but it also is your responsibility as a woman to know that just by looking at him as he passes by in the street.
Now, James, in his generosity, He will give you permission as a woman to be nervous when you're alone at night and a man walks by.
He will allow that.
So you should say thank you to James for that, because he's going to let you have that feeling.
Say thank you, Mr. James, or Miss James, or whatever.
But if the man walking by identifies as a woman, or if he identifies as a woman who identifies as neither a man nor a woman, but is a man, then you must not feel nervous.
You must intuit his self-perception in that moment.
You must absorb it into your being in a split second, and if you don't, then you're a transphobe.
This is the way the world works, according to this pompous, overbearing, megalomaniacal ass.
You must conform to his version of the world.
That's what you have to do.
Or you can simply tell this person, and every bullying narcissist like him, to piss off.
And also you can tell him that he is cancelled.
And that's what I would recommend.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt 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 Robbie Dantzler, 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 2022.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, three San Francisco school board members lose their jobs in a recall and the left prepares its next war on dissent with debanking efforts.
That's today on the Ben Shapiro Show.
Export Selection