Ep. 1053 - The COVID Tyrants Want Forgiveness. They Should Get Punishment Instead.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left wants us to forgive and forget about the tyranny they inflicted on us during COVID. But we can't do that. I'll explain why. Also, new documents reveal how the government has been using Big Tech to squash the First Amendment. The Supreme Court possibly prepares to ban systemic anti-white racism in college admissions. The government begins its UFO cover up. And a woman on TikTok explains why white people are morally obligated to refrain from watching the new Black Panther film. I'm already one step ahead of her on that.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Stay informed by listening to Morning Wire and Election Wire on DailyWire+, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch the brand new DailyWire+ series “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson On Marriage”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Use code "WALSH" at checkout for $30 OFF your order + FREE shipping: https://www.goodranchers.com/walsh
Hallow - Try Hallow for 3 months FREE: https://hallow.com/mattwalsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Wall Show, the left wants us to forgive and forget about the tyranny they inflicted on us during COVID, but I'll explain why we can't do that.
Also, new documents reveal how the government has been using big tech to squash the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court possibly prepares to ban systemic anti-white racism in college admissions.
The government begins its UFO cover-up, and a woman on TikTok explains why white people are morally obligated to refrain from watching the new Black Panther film.
I'm already one step ahead of her on that.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Holiday season is rapidly approaching and if there's one thing I love more than spending the holidays with my family,
it's spending the holidays with my family while eating delicious meat from good ranchers.
Not only is Good Ranchers meat superior in quality, but also it's incredibly cost-efficient as well.
While grocery store meat prices are on the rise, Good Ranchers is dedicated to helping you save as much as possible So if you subscribe to Good Ranchers today, you can lock in your price and avoid those insanely high prices at the grocery store.
Plus, as a special gift for my listeners this holiday season, Good Ranchers is giving away two Black Angus New York Strip steaks free with your order.
There are two 12-ounce steakhouse quality cuts, a $70 value.
You get it for free.
You don't want to miss out on that.
Black Angus tastes better and is more tender than other beef.
That's attributed to the meat's marbling, and marbled meat The fat is distributed thinly and evenly, which is why you get that consistent flavor.
Plus, the Black Angus from Good Ranchers is hand-cut and trimmed by expert butchers, so you know every piece is going to be exquisite.
So go to GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh.
Use code Walsh to check out for this special offer.
That's GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh for two Black Angus New York strip steaks, free with your order.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
You know, I have to say, this article in The Atlantic is a little bit bewildering to read.
I'm used to seeing the left silence, censor, defame, threaten, blackmail their opponents.
These are all tactics that we've grown familiar with.
But asking for forgiveness, now that is a unique strategy.
Though, you don't have to read very far to discover that this is not a humble, self-aware apology.
Rather, the case is made that we should forgive and forget.
While skipping over the apology and the accountability steps entirely, it is a demand for amnesty.
As it's called, the author of the viral article, Emily Oster, urges exactly that in the headline.
The headline is, in this article which has gone viral, let's declare a pandemic amnesty.
We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.
She begins, In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes.
We all wore cloth masks that I made myself.
We had a family hand signal which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put our masks on.
Once, when another child got too close to my then four-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled out, These precautions were totally misguided.
In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing somebody else hiking.
Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare.
Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn't have done anything anyway.
But the thing is, we didn't know.
Yes, but we did know, Emily.
There are a few things about COVID that we knew virtually from the very first moment.
One is that there is not a high risk of transmission outside.
The other is that the virus particles are much smaller than the pores on a cloth mask.
And we knew both of those things because that's what the data showed, and also because they were a matter of basic common sense.
But there's more to say here.
We'll allow Emily to flesh out her case, though.
She continues, I've been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I'm co-teaching at Brown University on COVID.
We spent several lectures reliving the first years of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.
Some of these choices turned out better than others.
To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging, if not universal, consensus that schools in the U.S.
were closed for too long.
The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students' well-being and educational progress were high.
The latest figures on learning loss are alarming.
But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information.
Reasonable people, people who cared about children and teachers, advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.
Another example, when the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna.
The mRNA vaccines have won out, but at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference.
This misstep wasn't nefarious.
It was the result of uncertainty.
Now she continually retreats behind this uncertainty line, painting the two years of COVID tyranny as a simple misunderstanding driven by well-meaning, benevolent actors who were just doing their best.
She says, quote, Most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.
Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic.
And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong.
In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons.
In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.
The people who got it right for whatever reason may want to gloat.
Those who got it wrong for whatever reason may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn't accord with the facts.
All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet.
These discussions are heated, unpleasant, and ultimately unproductive.
In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck.
And similarly, getting something wrong wasn't a moral failing.
Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.
Yes, moving forward is the aim, she says.
We must pick up the pieces and move on together.
United and happy into the sunset.
That's how she wraps the piece up.
She says, moving on is crucial now because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.
Student test scores have shown historical declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who were disadvantaged at the start.
We need to collect data, experiment, and invest.
Is high dosage tutoring more or less cost effective than extended school years?
Why have some states recovered faster than others?
We should focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.
The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, but dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well.
Let's acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.
Build back better, some might even say.
So, Emily is echoing here an increasingly popular sentiment on the left, They know they can't defend their response to COVID on the merits.
They know that even the people who were most compliant and obedient during the COVID years have now woken up from their stupors and are looking back on all of it the way that a guy with a hangover might look back on the previous night spent binge drinking.
Except that they were binging on fear and panic and now the well has dried up and they can see clearly what they couldn't see before.
Now the left assumed, and on this I actually, I agreed with them and I assumed too, that even after the mandates went away, many people would continue wearing the masks and keeping up with the social distancing routine and living in a state of reflexive COVID panic perpetually, forever maybe.
You know?
I thought that would happen.
I was afraid that would happen.
That's not what happened.
The mandates were dropped and almost every, every person dropped the masks with them.
You know, most people aren't going in for booster shots.
I've traveled all over the country over the past year, just as I was traveling all over the country at the height of the COVID panic, and I can tell you that even in the most liberal areas, the mask wearers are now weirdos.
They're outliers.
Every plane has maybe one or two of them.
A busy restaurant in a left-leaning metro area might have one group come in wearing the mask, only to take it off at the table, of course, continuing to perform the pandemic hokey-pokey dance that never made any sense to begin with.
But even those brain-damaged folks, you know, they're not requesting a plastic barrier be put up between themselves and the other tables.
Some things are too absurd even for them at this point.
So my point is that this is the only reason why we're hearing about amnesty and forgiveness.
It's only because the left discovered that most people never really bought into it.
They didn't believe it.
They just did what they were told because they were afraid of the consequences, which is a problem in and of itself, but that's what was happening.
The mental conditioning did not settle in nearly to the extent that the left had hoped and assumed, and now they're worried about the political consequences, so they're shrugging their shoulders and saying, huh, that was weird, guys, right?
What do you say we forget about all that stuff and just move on?
But we can't.
We can't forgive.
We can't forget.
We can't have mercy on the COVID tyrants.
And here's why.
First of all, they didn't close down the schools and force masking on everyone and vaccines and take away people's livelihoods and jobs and shut down society and wage war on our civil liberties all because they lacked information.
Even if they did, that would be no excuse.
Because this is America.
You cannot say to Americans, we don't really know what's going on or if this will help, but we're going to ruin your lives and take away your fundamental freedoms anyway, just in case.
That is not an acceptable line of reasoning in this country.
Not even close.
But that's also not the line of reasoning they used.
Despite actually knowing most of what the writer says they didn't know, they violently and forcefully imposed the opposite reality, or attempted to.
I mean, it wasn't as though the COVID panic peddlers were simply offering one perspective, one opinion.
They weren't saying, you know, this is how we feel about it, guys, but yeah, you do what you want to do.
We don't really know.
No, they said that you're not allowed to have any opinion or perspective but theirs.
They had people who disagreed with them deplatformed and silenced.
That's one of the reasons why this continued for so long, is because people who had the opposite viewpoint were driven away.
They sought to make it illegal to voice an alternative point of view.
If they didn't know, if they didn't have the information, that makes this tyrannical approach less justifiable, not more.
But again, they did know.
They knew the opposite of what they claimed.
They knew it because I knew it.
And you knew it.
And many of us were saying this in April or May of 2020.
Shouldn't shut down the schools.
These masks aren't doing anything.
You know, you don't need to be worried about Shutting down parks and beaches makes no sense because, if anything, you want people to be outside in the sun when a virus is going around.
Many of us were saying that practically from the beginning.
We were saying that, you know, March, April, May.
They started saying it last week.
How did we know it if our public health authorities, so-called, did not?
Did we have access to information that was unavailable to them?
I mean, the claim is absurd.
Now, the point here is not to gloat.
Honestly, I'm not much in the mood for gloating after what they did and what they took from us.
Children committed suicide.
Elderly people died alone in nursing homes.
Many businesses went under.
People lost everything.
Gloat?
No, no, no.
We want justice.
We want accountability.
We want to set an example so that they won't try this again.
Move on?
I'll move on after there have been military tribunals.
I'll move on when Fauci and his comrades are tried and convicted for crimes against humanity and given the maximum penalty for it.
That's when we can move on.
And not before it.
Here's an idea.
If you want to practice forgiveness, if you want to let people move on from past mistakes, Why not tell that to the cancel culture vultures who spend their time digging through comments people have made or made in the distant past and then using those as a pretense for destroying their lives in the present?
I mean, there is a lack of forgiveness in our society, but that's where it can be felt.
Somebody expresses an opinion or makes a joke and suddenly their persona non grata, they're disgraced, ostracized.
Call for forgiveness there.
That's where we need it.
But the tyrants who took advantage of a virus and used it as an opportunity to seize control and wield power?
No, they don't deserve to be forgiven.
They deserve to be punished.
And that's what we should do.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now the left is losing their faith, but we are not.
And a core part of that faith is prayer.
I talk a lot about stressful things all day, and you might feel a little bit overwhelmed with where the country is going, but I've got good news for you.
HALO can help you find some peace and hope throughout the day, rooted not in the government or its institutions, but Hallow has over 5,000 audio-guided prayers, meditations, and peaceful Christian music, including the Rosary with Bishop Barron and Mark Wahlberg, Bible bedtime stories with Jonathan Rumi, who plays Jesus in The Chosen, prayers for kids so we aren't raising another generation of crazies, and so much more.
Hallow helps you build a daily routine and a habit of prayer.
It helps me to pray, meditate, and sleep better throughout the day.
Well, not sleeping throughout the day.
I don't even sleep at night most of the time.
Anyway, it's a huge part of my daily routine.
Get an exclusive three-month trial at Howlow.com slash Matt Walsh.
That's Howlow.com slash Matt Walsh.
Reclaim your peace in this crazy world.
Make sure that you download Howlow today.
Hopefully you had a good Halloween.
My kids enjoyed trick-or-treating last night.
They enjoyed it even though nobody understood their costumes.
My kids are the weird ones who always choose these obscure costumes on Halloween.
At least my older two do.
They're never superheroes or Disney characters or whatever.
This year the twins went as characters from Jurassic World, which is the reboot Jurassic Park franchise.
So they went as reboot Jurassic Park characters.
And I tried to tell them that no one is going to know You're just wearing a vest.
No one's going to know where that's from.
The costume's way too specific.
At Halloween, so I've been telling them for nine years, Halloween, you play the hits, okay?
You play the, stick with the classics.
That's what you do on Halloween.
But they don't, it doesn't sink in.
So every year my kids are like, I want to go as a car salesman.
Just, what?
You could be a werewolf or Spider-Man or something.
The other thing that's guaranteed to happen on Halloween, if you have a toddler, is that, and this is just every single year, there's going to be a last-minute wardrobe change, or else she'll refuse out of nowhere to wear any costume at all, without any explanation.
She's, like, super excited about a costume, and then the day comes, the night comes, I don't want to wear that.
No explanation at all.
Can't reason it out, can't tell you why.
So, our toddler Was supposed to be The Little Mermaid for Halloween and was very excited about it.
And then at the last minute said she didn't want to be a Little Mermaid anymore.
Maybe because she knows that the Little Mermaid is black now and she doesn't want to culturally appropriate.
That could be it.
So I tried to be sensitive to it.
And she decided she wanted to be a dinosaur.
I guess in keeping with the Jurassic World theme.
And my wife had a dinosaur costume just on hand to give her.
Because my wife is prepared for all holiday related emergencies.
And she was prepared for that one.
So we went out.
And it was good.
It rained, you know.
It started raining, and the kids at a certain point were just like, they wanted to stop.
And my wife was the one pushing everyone to keep going.
She's like, no, we'll just do a couple more houses.
And it's pouring rain, and all the kids are complaining, and I'm complaining now.
It's my wife.
And I told her, I said, I can buy you candy if you want.
What candy do you want?
We can go to Walgreens on the way back, and I'll buy it for you.
No, we don't need to do this.
So, they made out pretty well, and I did explain to my kids before they went to bed, because they had their haul in their bags, and I explained to them this really interesting scientific phenomenon where bags of candy will actually, they'll kind of settle and condense overnight, so that in the morning, They'll be much lighter and there will appear to be less candy than there was when they went to bed.
It's a very interesting scientific event that occurs, but you got to trust the science and just don't worry about it.
My daughter was skeptical, but the other kids just bought it.
All right.
We'll start with this from the Daily Wire.
It says hundreds of internal documents expose top US government agencies working closely with social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor American freedom of speech under the guise of fighting disinformation over several years as obtained and reported by The Intercept.
The Intercept's investigative journalist, Lee Fang, broke the story on Monday, confirming what Americans have feared in the current age of censorship, that only authoritarian regimes could dream of enacting a nation founded on the unabridged right to freedom of speech.
By Monday night, Fang appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss the bombshell report We looked at hundreds of documents that paint a vivid picture of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, closely collaborating with the top social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook, to censor various forms of content under the banner of fighting disinformation.
Fanks said the story shows a very cozy relationship between the government, alphabet agencies like the FBI and DHS, and tech giants, where they held monthly meetings as recently as August and exchanged emails and texts to shape online discourse.
One of those cozy relationships highlighted in the report shows a text from earlier this year between former DHS official and current Microsoft executive Matt Masterson and Jen Easterly, a DHS director, saying, the government needs to get the private sector, needs to get more comfortable with the government.
I don't know exactly what that means.
Platforms have to get comfortable with the government.
Okay.
It's really, it's interesting how hesitant they remain.
You need to get comfortable with the government, is what they were saying.
So this was, and you can look at the report from The Intercept and it goes into Li Feng's report.
This is real.
You know, there are some people out there doing real journalism.
Here's one example.
And what it shows is this end run that the government was performing to get around the First Amendment, and just going right to the big tech companies and saying, you need to get comfortable with us, and we're going to be policing disinformation.
This is why they're so paranoid about Elon Musk taking over, obviously.
This is actually what they're worried about.
They're worried that this, you know, not only will this come to an end and they're not going to be able to control the public discourse anymore, but also the people working at these platforms, you know, they just never imagined, like at Twitter, they never imagined that someone who is not a comrade, someone who is not an ideological compatriot would one day run the company.
It just, it never, never occurred to them.
Which is why these emails and text messages are coming out now.
They're very explicit.
They're putting all this stuff in writing, just because they figured, like, this is Twitter.
This is big tech.
It's always going to be in our hands, and by our, I mean on the left.
The idea that someone else would come in who has not sworn ideological allegiance to them was unthinkable, but that's what happened.
Which isn't even to say that Elon Musk is a conservative, because I don't think he is, and he doesn't claim to be.
He's just not a dyed-in-the-wool leftist.
He's not that.
And so we're going to find out a lot more about this sort of thing.
You know, this is another one of the reasons why you really can't even call these big tech companies private companies.
They're really not.
They are private in name only, maybe.
But they're not actually.
These are quasi-government institutions.
Now that looks like that's going to change with Twitter.
I hope it changes.
But up until now, this is what it was.
These are quasi-government institutions.
They work closely with the government.
They've gotten comfortable with the government.
And they work to advance.
And they share an agenda.
They share an objective.
And so they're working together.
And it's increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two.
And of course, it should also go without saying that policing disinformation or misinformation, this is not the purview of the government.
Now, I understand why the government would want it to be in their purview, because we live in the information age.
Information is everything, and there's And everywhere.
Information is everywhere.
We're all absorbing information at a historically unprecedented rate every single day.
We encounter more information in a single day than people prior to the modern age would have encountered in a lifetime.
And so if you control the flow and spread of information, then you control everything.
You control society.
You control what people think.
I mean, for them, this is much better than... Yeah, it's one thing to pass laws, like we talked about in the opening.
They passed laws and they passed mandates, and they were able to force compliance much more than they should have been able to do.
But they didn't change what people believed.
Because as soon as the mandate went away, people took the mask away.
The most revealing thing was on the planes, because the planes were among the last of the holdouts.
Where you still had to wear a mask on a plane up until, you know, recently.
And everybody was 100% compliant on the planes and in airports.
Even though in the airports you didn't have to be.
Now, on the plane, you know, I always tested it.
I would take the mask off for as long as I could get away with.
But on a plane, you couldn't get away with it for very long.
In an airport, though, this is all through COVID.
I never wore a mask in the airport because there was, you know, nobody would, there really wasn't, once you got through TSA, there wasn't any central sort of authority figure that could tell you to put it on.
Maybe you passed by a gate agent who would say, put your mask on.
I just ignore him and walk by.
What are they going to do, call TSA?
They never did.
But most people didn't even test it.
They just put the mask on, and they did as they were told.
However, mask mandate goes away, and immediately, everyone takes the mask off.
It's like 99.9% of the people take the mask off, with just a few outliers, right?
Well, that shows that they were able to control behavior, but they were not able to control, in this case, they were not able to control the way people think to the extent that they wanted.
I think the government's learning a lesson from that.
The regime is learning a lesson.
Exactly the wrong lesson, but they're learning a lesson.
What they're learning is that, yeah, we can pass laws, we can pass mandates, we can force people at gunpoint to do things, but it's much more valuable if you can control how people think and what they believe.
Because then they'll do your bidding without you even telling them they have to.
And then you can claim that it's not tyranny, that it's not oppression.
Because there's no law saying people have to do this, they're just doing it.
Well, they're doing it because you've manipulated them at the deepest level.
And that's what this is all about, obviously.
All right, NBC has this report.
It says, um, conservative Supreme Court justices indicated on Monday that they are willing to end the explicit consideration of race in college admissions as they weigh cases challenging affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University.
Members of the Court's conservative majority questioned the legal rationale for allowing the practice and probed to what extent colleges and universities could enact new race-neutral admissions policies aimed at improving racial diversity.
Some justices, however, indicated that they would be willing to allow applicants to discuss their racial identities in some form as part of essays touching upon their experiences, such as examples of overcoming discrimination.
Liberal justice, who are in the minority, defended the use of race in admissions, citing the importance of diversity on campus and the difficulty of achieving it without any consideration of race.
Affirmative action introduced to redress historic discrimination has been a contentious issue for years, yada yada, but it's looking now, based on these oral arguments, which can be deceptive, but based on those, it looks like this could be Affirmative action in the college administration admissions game could be going the way of Roe v. Wade.
A few points about this.
First, obviously you cannot prevent or heal racial discrimination by committing it.
The most you can do is swap one type for another.
That's the most you could possibly do.
So it's just like if you're worried about To use a fishing analogy, if you're worried about an invasive predatory species of fish in an ecosystem, and so in order to address that problem, you release a different invasive predatory fish into the ecosystem to eat that one, well, now you've just swapped out one invasive species for another.
You haven't gotten rid of the problem.
You've just created a different problem to take its place.
Now, you might say that, well, this other fish is, you know, if we have to have one, we'd rather have this other predatory invasive species.
But, but that is what the argument you're making.
You're not getting rid of it.
You're just, you're just, you're, you're replacing it with a different version that you find to be less threatening.
But then, in reality, of course, what's most likely going to happen is that you don't just replace one species with another.
Now you end up with both, actually.
That's probably what's going to happen.
And that's what they're trying to do here.
Let's get rid of systemic racism against racial minorities by replacing it with a mandatory systemic racism against white people.
And here's the other thing.
If it worked, okay?
If the plan actually worked to institute racial discrimination against whites in order to prevent racial discrimination or to get rid of racial discrimination against blacks, then it shouldn't be needed anymore.
Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades.
So even by their own logic, Let's just say that, yeah, there's systemic racism in the university system, and so they needed to put these affirmative action policies in place to get rid of it.
Okay, well, it's been decades now.
If you're telling me that it's still needed, that would seem to indicate that it's not working to solve the problem that you're trying to solve.
But this is the built-in advantage of the systemic racism theory.
It's unfalsifiable.
Which means that it is false.
That's the thing about an unfalsifiable theory.
An unfalsifiable theory, they're always false, they're always illegitimate, because if there's nothing that could happen, if there's no evidence that could possibly be presented that would prove your theory false, that means that your theory exists independent of the evidence, which means it is a bad theory.
If your theory is based on the evidence that you have available, then you should be able to tell us what sort of evidence could be presented that would make you go, okay, well, I'm wrong about this or the facts have changed and this is no longer the case anymore.
For systemic racism, the purveyors of this theory have made it clear that nothing can ever happen that will prove to them that it doesn't exist.
It's impossible to solve the problem.
So you can have affirmative action for 40 or 50 years.
You can elect a black president.
You can have all these different policies putting minorities into positions of leadership.
You can have racial minorities running many of the major cities all across the country.
You can do all of this and much more.
And it's done, according to them, absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
The problem still exists.
In fact, if anything, it's worse now than it's ever been, if you listen to them.
So, that means either that the entire theory is bunk, unfalsifiable, exists apart from the evidence, or that what they're doing just isn't working.
Or a combination of the two.
And there's also this basic idea that Diversity is desirable for its own sake, because that's what the liberal justices are really saying.
They're not even so much saying that we still have this embedded anti-black systemic racism in the university system.
They might think that, but that's not really the argument.
The argument is just that we need to have racial diversity, it's good for its own sake, and the only way to get it is to give racial minorities an embedded advantage and to disadvantage white applicants and also Asian applicants.
Justice Thomas, he tried to strike at this idea in his line of questioning.
I thought that this was pretty good.
Listen to this.
I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means.
It seems to mean everything for everyone.
And I'd like you, first, you did give some examples in your opening remarks, but I'd like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina.
And I'd also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly What the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina would be.
Yes, your honor.
So first, we define diversity the way this court has and its court's precedence, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race.
And there's a factual finding in this record, PEDAP 113, that there are many different diversity factors that are considered as a greater factor in our admissions process than race.
Diversity of, they always throw that in there.
Well, we also take into account diversity of perspectives.
You take it into account so that you can exclude it because that's the last thing that you want on the college campus.
On the modern college campus, that's the last thing they want is a diversity of perspectives.
But that is, you know, there are... I don't think diversity for its own sake should ever be just the objective.
It should always be a byproduct.
So in the case of college admissions, The objective is to admit as many qualified applicants as you can, and to do so on the basis of merit, to admit the most qualified applicants.
That should be the objective.
Diversity is not the objective.
It's a byproduct.
It could be a happy byproduct, but even then, the most advantageous or the most desirable diversity byproducts It's not a diversity of skin tones and skin pigmentation.
Then it does go to a diversity of perspectives.
People who think differently about things.
That's where you get the richness of the educational environment.
And that's where people can hone their ideas by having debate and discussion.
That is the kind of diversity that you do want.
Again, but as a byproduct.
Even then, not as the objective.
So they're taking the less important forms of diversity, the more meaningless sort of forms of diversity, having a room full of people that all have different shades and skin tones.
And they're not only making that the most important form of diversity, but they're making that the objective rather than the byproduct, which is what it's supposed to be.
Speaking of diversity hires, Al Sharpton, apparently still He exists and has a show on MSNBC.
Listen to him here.
He's supposed to be interviewing Cathy Halkuel of the governor of New York, who herself is essentially a diversity hire as well.
She has never been elected to anything, by the way.
She's never been elected to anything.
She's just been riding coattails all the way up to the top, all the way up to the governor mansion.
But this is supposed to be an interview questioning her, but really this is him coaching her and giving her some talking points.
Listen to this.
I don't think anyone has been stronger in many states on dealing with gun control and working with communities.
I remember when you were lieutenant governor, you used to show up everywhere with the anti-crime folks.
So, I mean, is this just a distorted way of campaigning?
I mean, what do you read into this?
Reverend Al, these are master manipulators.
They have this conspiracy going all across America to try and convince people that in Democratic states they're not as safe.
Well, guess what?
They're also not only election deniers, they're data deniers.
The data shows that shootings and murders are down in our state by 15%, even in New York City, down 20% on Long Island, where Lee Zeldin comes from.
And it's the Republican states.
Where they have almost no restrictions on guns.
Because of the abundance of guns, people are killing each other with more frequency.
The safer places are the democratic states.
First of all, words have meaning, I have to continually insist.
I have to insist on this.
That words have meaning, and the word conspiracy has a meaning.
Okay, and so saying, even if you're wrong, saying that Democrat-run cities are not safe, that's not a conspiracy theory.
That's just a claim about reality.
Whether you're right or wrong, it's a claim.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
Now you could go further and theorize about some conspiracies that are happening there,
which are not really theories at all.
For example, George Soros pouring money into these races to elect DAs who will not enforce the law, sowing chaos and anarchy into our system and into our communities.
And yeah, I suppose you could call that a conspiracy in effect.
But it's not a theory.
It is actually happening.
So, that's the first thing.
And also, the way that they switch between state and city.
Oh, red states are more dangerous.
Well, if a red state is dangerous, it's because of the blue cities within the red states.
Those are always going to be the most dangerous areas.
And that, again, is not a theory.
Go ahead and look at the data.
Look at the data in New York.
Okay, if you want data, you want to be data-driven here.
Look at crime and violence in New York City under Rudy Giuliani in the early 2000s, and then compare that to crime and violence now.
Ever since far-left Democrats took over, starting with de Blasio and on forward.
If you really want the data, that's what you should be looking at.
All right, this is from, oh, I gotta mention this.
This is from the Military Times.
It says, Pentagon attributes UFO sightings to spies and airborne trash.
That's no way to speak about aliens.
Intelligence officials are set to deliver Congress a new report today on unexplained aerial phenomenon, better known as UFOs.
The document from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will provide an update to
a report the intelligence agency made public in June of 2021, which explored more than 140
incidents of UAP encounters between 2004 and 2021. Despite calls for greater transparency from
lawmakers and military leaders, it's not yet clear which contents of the coming report will be made
While it could offer more detailed explanations into the surge of recent sightings, Defense Department officials are downplaying theories of alien invasions and emphasizing ordinary objects that they say are more likely to blame.
Military officials told the New York Times that most resolved UFO cases can be attributed to foreign spies or airborne trash.
Okay, I want to know about the airborne trash.
So there's trash in the sky speeding along at the speed of sound?
Changing directions mid-flight?
Where's this trash coming from?
Is it trash that the aliens have thrown out of their UFOs?
Maybe they'll explain how that works exactly.
In May, during Congress's first public UFO hearing in more than 50 years, Pentagon officials testified that a video with mysterious glowing green triangles actually displayed drones that were shot through night vision lenses.
Sure.
In another video, referred to as GoFast, an unknown object appeared to move at incredible speed.
Military officials later debunked the video as an illusion created by the angle of observation against water.
Oh, come on.
So where's the trash part of it?
Are they going to even explain in this article how trash could... What is the trash doing 40,000 feet in the air and how is it moving that way?
And what kind of trash is this?
Are these plastic straws?
Has the plastic straw problem gotten that bad that now they're whizzing through the sky too?
Skimming ahead.
No, they don't revisit that.
They don't revisit it in the article.
They never explain.
They just, ah, it's probably airborne trash.
What do you mean airborne trash?
Ah, just, you know, just trash sometimes.
You bring your garbage cans out to the curb and then you come in the morning, you come out in the morning and they're gone and you think that, like, the trashman took them away.
But sometimes they'll just, they'll fly up into the sky and, you know, and freak out Navy pilots.
It happens sometimes, I guess.
This is ridiculous.
You know what, this makes me more convinced than, you want to talk about conspiracy theories?
Okay, here's one.
This makes me more convinced than ever that aliens not only are real, which is just a
fact, but have been to Earth.
Because now, there was a moment, I was actually, I was less convinced back when it seemed that
the government was being open about it.
And they started talking about it.
And they said, yeah, we'll talk about aliens.
And then I thought, well, okay, this is not, they wouldn't, something's not right here.
But now they're retrenching again and they're, you know, yeah, we've debunked it.
Don't worry about it.
Nevermind.
That yeah, they've explained the ones that they can explain with normal, you know, just by pointing to normal expected physical phenomena.
So they've explained the ones that can be explained.
Okay, I get that.
Big breaking news there.
But there's still the lion's share of these sightings that have never been explained.
And those are the ones we're interested in.
And again, I really want to understand how you can blame this on trash.
It's, you know, someone threw a Coke can into the air and then the light refracting from Jupiter and bouncing off of the ocean created a hallucination-type effect.
Okay, right.
All right, one other thing to play for you before we get to the comment section.
The new Black Panther film is coming out soon.
This is, you know, the first Black Panther was terrible.
I didn't see it, but I know that it's terrible because it's a Marvel comic book movie.
And all Marvel comic book movies are terrible.
As Martin Scorsese said, they're basically just theme park rides, except that they're boring and repetitive theme park rides.
So they're more like, these are more, they're not theme park, these are carnival rides for children.
These are like the teacup ride that goes around in circles.
That's what all these movies are.
Anyway, so the new Black Panther is coming out next week.
But according to TikTok, if you're white, you better not be there on opening day.
This message is to all our would-be accomplices and white allies.
This message is to all the white people who have BLM in their bio.
If you really want to prove to Black people that you love us and you care about us and you are down for the cause, do not go see that movie opening weekend.
You buy your ticket, you give it to a Black person or a Black family who can't afford to go, and then you go sit at that theater in front of the doors.
You make sure that every Black person in that theater can enjoy that movie in peace.
You make sure that you use your body to block us from anybody who would be coming in that theater to do us harm.
That is your job.
You can go see it on another weekend.
Go see it on the second or third weekend.
But the first weekend, that's for us.
To do anything other than this is anti-black.
Agreed.
You know, first of all, let me say, if not seeing Black Panther on opening night makes you progressive and anti-racist, then call me Ibram X. Walsh, because I am... I mean, I'm...
So progressive that I will never watch it at all.
I would not want to take that experience away from or impede in any way on the experiences of black Americans.
And so I will just never, ever watch it.
And that's what I'll do.
And I mean, as far as sitting in front of the theater, I don't think I'm going to go to that extent.
But also it gets confusing because what if I'm sitting in front of the theater protecting the theater from white presence?
What about a biracial person who's trying to come watch it?
What do we do with him?
Do I say, well, you can watch it with one eye open?
I mean, so what do you do about that?
I will be interested to see if any white woke people actually follow through on this to prove their woke credentials.
Yet for me, as ludicrous as this all is, The bigger issue is just how this film is treated like some sort of sacred thing.
You know, something of deep significance for the black community.
Black Panther.
And it just shows a total lack of culture.
And I don't mean a total lack of culture among black people.
I mean lack of culture in America.
I mean lack of American culture.
It's like this anti-culture.
It's not a culture.
Because these are, for all communities, the most important stories, our most cherished stories that we take so seriously, whether on racial grounds or not, they're superhero movies, they're these corporate things, you know, corporate franchises, brands, like this is what we take seriously.
This is our most sacred and art, what we revere the most.
Our art is all a brand.
And that is an anti-culture, that's not culture.
So that's my takeaway from this.
Let's get to the comment section.
I like to work.
I want to work.
I find my purpose in my work.
If I was on a permanent vacation and a billionaire, I would be downright miserable and life wouldn't be worth living.
The best days of my life are the ones full of adversity and I collapse into bed dead tired, but with something accomplished.
If I had to slop pigs for a living, it would still be worth it, providing for my family and a sense of purpose.
Can't get better than that.
No, I don't think we disagree.
I mean, I basically agree.
I think It's hard to say when you're not actually in the position.
You know, I think the lottery right now is up to a billion dollars, the Powerball jackpot.
I'm not going to go play it, because for one thing, I'm not going to win.
But also, yeah, I don't actually desire that.
It does seem rather depressing to just be given all of that money, especially as a young person.
It's like, well, what do you do?
What are you working for for the rest of your life?
Once the thrill of having all that money wears off, and it's like, well, I didn't earn this.
It was just given to me.
And now there's nothing to do.
But at the same time, When someone actually offers you the check, would you in reality turn it down?
Hard to say until you're in that position.
But my point is, no matter how you feel about work, whether you want to work or you don't want to work, it almost doesn't really matter.
Because the point is that this is life.
This is what life is.
Life is work.
And you cannot separate work from life.
Work comes in different forms, you know.
It doesn't mean that your life is a job.
It doesn't mean, you know, you could not have a job and still be working, just as people did for most of human history.
They didn't have jobs the way that we think of it in the industrial age, but they certainly were working, and that is life.
And as I'm always pointing out, you know, if you try to sever yourself from work, if you try to live a life apart from work, You're not choosing some holier-than-thou, more kind of enlightened approach, because your life still depends on work.
It's just that other people are doing it for you now.
You're depending on other people to work for you.
Whether it's your parents, because you're living in the basement, or it's the government, it's the taxpayers rather than not the government, it's the taxpayers, whatever it is, you are now depending on the work of others, while pretending that you're above, above it all.
You know, that you're living this enlightened life.
Oh, we don't work.
I'm too good for that.
You know, the people that are feeding you and clothing you and putting a roof over your head?
It's not too good for them, apparently.
Eduardo says, I wish I worked with Matt and I could come into work as a watermelon and sit right across from him for the whole day.
LOL.
Well, that would be an issue because I'm in my office and if you just came there and sat in silence dressed as a watermelon, that you would be fired on the spot.
I don't have the power to do it, but I would anyway.
Chris says, I'm convinced that Matt Walsh's ad writers are trolling him.
Yeah, you think so?
You just picked up on that.
Let's see.
Lucy says, I for sure made my own sexy Matt Walsh costume, posted my pic on the Facebook sweet baby gang.
Ha ha ha.
Well, you're actually banned from the show for that because to say sexy Matt Walsh costume makes it sound like it's a variation of what a Matt Walsh would normally be.
So you're, you know, it's like you're, whatever, you're a sexy Frankenstein or something.
That's what I'm getting from it.
I take that as an insult against me.
So you're banned from the show.
Anna says, thank you for your contrarian takes on children's stories.
I've always felt that Snow White was the bad guy in her story, but I assume I don't have to tell you why.
No, you don't.
You're preaching to the choir on that one.
I mean, this creepy drifter is wandering around in the woods and comes upon this house and then just like walks in.
If I'm remembering the Snow White story, I haven't seen it in a long time, but she just walks in.
To a house?
And then starts snooping around?
And then she goes into the bedroom, rearranges the beds, and falls asleep?
And takes a nap in someone's house?
What kind of psychopath breaks into someone's house and takes a nap?
You hear about cases like that in San Francisco and in cities where homeless heroin addicts will do that.
It's very disturbing to see trespassing and burglary taken so lightly in a children's story, especially in light of what happened at Nancy Pelosi's house.
So it's just, it's too soon.
And then the dwarves come back, and they're just these hard-working blue-collar guys.
And they happen to be a foot and a half tall, and I think they're a little bit mentally disabled.
And they come in and they see this woman sleeping in their bed, and she's a giant compared to them, so they feel they have no choice but to allow her to stay.
Now she's a squatter, and really is basically kidnapping.
And she's also a moron, because the evil witch comes along, and the evil witch has shapeshifting abilities.
She can take any form she wants, apparently, and she chooses to shapeshift into an even more evil-looking witch, which doesn't make any sense to me.
She goes to, well, not Snow White's house, the house that she's taken over, knocks on the window, and is like, has an evil laugh, and just hands her an apple.
And Snow White takes it and eats it.
Who?
Some weird-looking, deformed old woman, who literally has an evil laugh, knocks on your window and hands you a fruit basket, and without asking any questions, you just start eating from it?
And then she passes out and the dwarves, for some reason, had a glass coffin.
The size of Snow White ready to go.
So I don't think there are any innocent parties in this story at all.
There's a lot of weird things happening.
They have this coffin ready to go.
They don't even check her to see if she's breathing.
They just put her in the coffin.
They're going to bury her.
And then the prince comes along.
He's introduced to the story.
We've never seen this guy before.
And because he's just wandering in the woods and comes.
Everyone's just wandering in the woods coming across this.
He walks up to this woman who he thinks is dead and kisses her on the lips.
Can you imagine going to a wake of someone you don't know?
And walking up to the corpse and kissing it?
And everyone's looking at you like, who is that guy?
Does he even know?
And then she wakes up and is supposed to be happily ever after.
The whole thing is just bizarre.
It's very bizarre stuff.
There are no good guys in that story at all.
The corporate media agenda means that the news is presented in a biased way.
You know it.
I know it.
We all know it.
Thankfully, there's a way to get the most important news of the day without the narrative, and that's by listening to one of the top news podcasts, Morning Wire.
New episodes are available every morning, seven days a week, and they cover stories other media outlets won't touch.
And every Sunday until the midterm elections, you can also tune into Election Wire for in-depth coverage, candidate interviews, and much more.
It's the most important midterm elections in recent history, and it's not like we say that for every election.
This is the most important, and you'll want to be informed.
You'll find Morning Wire and Election Wire on Daily Wire+, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, Jeffrey Marsh is a name that has probably come up in the Daily Cancellation before.
He's a 45-year-old creep who's gained prominence in the groomer community through TikTok videos promoting transgenderism to kids.
Now, according to the bio on his website, his videos have received over 1 billion views in total.
He goes on to pad his stats in his bio by claiming to be, quote, the first non-binary public figure to appear on national television.
Of course, non-binary simply means that he's a dude who wears eyeshadow and women's clothing.
And if you believe that Geoffrey Marsh is the first guy to do that on TV, I would like to introduce you to something called the 1980s, where it was quite common.
There's nothing bold or pioneering about cross-dressing.
In fact, at this point, it's much more unique for a man to appear on television wearing men's clothing.
If you really want to be a trendsetter, simply dare to be normal in this society.
One other possible note of interest from Marsh's bio It says, quote, Jeffrey has studied and taught Zen for over 20 years.
Their rigorous training while living as a monk at a Buddhist monastery in California, as chronicled in his book, How to Be You, resulted in Jeffrey receiving the status of Precepted Facilitator in the Soto Zen tradition of Buddhism.
The rank of Precepted Facilitator is an elite category and marks a Zen practitioner trained to assist anyone towards spiritual growth.
So in keeping with his distinctive and individualistic approach to life, Geoffrey Marsh calls himself a Buddhist, just like literally every other liberal white guy in California.
And by the way, at the risk of butchering Buddhist teachings, I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject because I don't pretend to be Buddhist, unlike Geoffrey Marsh, but I'm pretty sure that one of the fundamental ideas in Buddhism is that you're supposed to detach yourself from desire.
But the LGBT cult totally defines itself by its desires.
It teaches that life is best lived in pursuit of what you desire, no matter what your desires might be.
This represents, if anything, a kind of anti-Buddhist philosophy, it seems to me.
It's like that's the opposite of what Buddhism is, but I'll leave it to the Buddhists to make that case.
Today my concern is one of the most recent videos posted by this non-binary Buddhist Zen cross-dressing groomer monk.
In this video, as he has in so many other videos, Marsh attempts to definitively debunk the anti-trans propaganda disseminated by vile transphobes like yours truly, for example.
Here it is.
Hi kids!
There's no such thing as a boy or a girl.
And I can prove it.
So gather around the family, the parents, everybody.
Answer my questions.
You either say boys or girls.
Who's usually taller?
Oh, boys?
Okay.
But you've met some short boys, right?
You've met some tall girls.
So usually boys are taller, but not always.
Okay.
Who likes the color pink?
Girls?
Okay, um, but you've met girls who don't like pink.
And you met boys who do like pink.
So usually girls like pink, but not always.
Everything you can think of that makes a boy or makes a girl is usually, but not always.
And some of them are not even usually.
Where does that leave you?
Free.
You get to like what you like.
You get to be who you are.
Maybe you're even like me, and you're not a boy or a girl.
Wow.
Brilliant.
I mean, the great thing about this argument is that I can use it to erase literally anything from existence.
For example, most penguins are black and white, but some penguins are albino and have all-white feathers.
Therefore, penguins don't exist.
The average length of a novel is 90,000 words, but some novels are well over 200,000 or even 500,000 words.
Therefore, books don't exist.
Here's an interesting one.
The average IQ of a human being is between 85 and 115.
and 115. The average IQ of a fruit bat is 2.3. Jeffrey Marsh's IQ is also 2.3.
Marsha's IQ is also.
Therefore, human beings don't exist, or fruit bats don't exist, or Jeffrey Marsh is a fruit bat, or perhaps all these things are true.
Indeed, we might as well say that fruit bats don't exist, and also, Jeffrey Marsh is a fruit bat, considering that Jeffrey Marsh is claiming that boys and girls don't exist, while also claiming that a boy who identifies as a girl should be accepted and affirmed as one.
He demands that we affirm someone's self-identity as something that, according to him, doesn't exist.
This remains one of the many, many self-contradictions in gender ideology.
It holds us sacrosanct in individuals' identification with or in a particular sex category, while at the same time insisting that the sex categories are mythological.
There are no girls, and also that person over there with a penis is one.
You must accept him as something that is nothing or else you have erased him even though we're the ones who just erased the entire category that he is claiming membership in.
There is no way to make sense of this hopeless tangle of contradictions.
You can't understand it because it is not meant to be understood.
Marsh justifies his erasure of boys and girls by pointing out that some girls are taller than some boys and some boys like the color pink.
This is the level of intellectual rigor that we get from the left on this topic.
You probably don't need me to explain why this reasoning is flawed, but I will anyway.
We speak about height and color preference in terms of averages.
In particular, height anyway.
We talk about averages especially.
The existence of outliers within a category does not throw the existence of the entire category into question.
On the contrary, you need the outliers in order to come up with the average.
You cannot have an average without the outliers.
That's the whole point of the average.
But the fact that we can come up with averages within these categories and then compare the categories against each other is a pretty good indication that the categories exist.
If we can say anything at all about a category, if we can make any statements, if we can offer any descriptions of any kind, then that means the category exists.
The very statement, not all boys are tall, automatically validates and confirms the existence of boys as a category because you're talking about them.
If they didn't exist, the statement would be meaningless.
It doesn't make any sense to speak descriptively about a group of people who, according to you, are fictional.
It would be like if you wanted to prove that leprechauns don't exist, and so you said, you know, not all leprechauns have red hair, some are blonde.
Okay, so you're saying they do exist then.
I mean, you're describing them.
So, what we've learned here is that even if you can only speak about a category in terms of rough averages, that doesn't mean the category is illegitimate or non-existent.
But in the case of boys and girls, men and women, we can actually speak much more definitively.
Marge claims that there's nothing we can say about men or women that Would apply to every member of that group.
And that's what's known as begging the question.
Okay?
Not to be confused with raising a question, even though the phrases are often used interchangeably.
He is begging the question about sex differences by embedding his conclusion into the premise of his argument.
Begging the question.
He proves, quote-unquote, that men and women don't exist by pointing out that there are no definitive facts about them.
But that argument could only even begin to work if we assume from the outset that it's true that there are no definitive facts about them.
But it's not true.
I can say about men, for example, that all of them are male, and all males are of the nature to produce sperm and impregnate females.
Meanwhile, all women are female, and all females are of the nature to produce ova and bear offspring.
Even the females who do not bear offspring are still of the nature to do so.
It is natural for them to do so.
They are the only ones who can do so.
Disease or old age or genetic defect may prevent them from doing so, but that doesn't change their nature.
The same in the reverse is true for males.
I can say that all human beings are of the nature to walk on two legs.
It's natural for us to walk on two legs.
A man who loses a leg in a car accident, or who was born deformed, still shares this nature.
All humans are of the nature to be self-aware and sentient, conscious.
This is one of the defining features of human beings.
It is what makes us human.
And that doesn't change just because some human beings are in a coma.
Injury or sickness has deprived some humans of this natural function, but that doesn't mean that it's not a natural function.
In fact, the man in a coma only confirms that human beings are conscious because we wouldn't be able to identify and label unconsciousness if we weren't conscious ourselves.
The exception proves the rule.
This is true of unconsciousness in human beings, just as it's true of infertility in women.
In a similar way, if it wasn't natural for human beings to possess basic intelligence and reasoning skills, I would not be able to identify Geoffrey Marsh as being especially stupid.
But human beings are supposed to have basic reasoning and intelligence, which is how I know that Geoffrey Marsh's bottomless stupidity is unusual and possibly an indication of some sort of brain disease or trauma, which is something that he should really probably look into, talk to his doctor about.
But in the meantime, what I can say is that he is cancelled.
And that'll do it for us for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
