Ep. 1075 - Genocidal Anti-White Bigots Are Worried That There's Too Much 'Hate And Racism'
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, much has been said about the rise of hate and bigotry in America. But most of the people lamenting this alleged phenomenon are themselves huge proponents of bigotry and racism. So long as it's anti-white racism. We have some egregious examples for you today. Also, leftist justices on the Supreme Court embarrass themselves during oral arguments over a freedom of religion case. A former Twitter moderator talks about the trauma his job caused him. I reveal the hidden brilliance between Time Magazine's entertainer of the year. And King and Queen Victim, Harry and Meghan, get ready to release their new docuseries. Because all they want is privacy.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Gift Bundles: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Black Rifle Coffee - Get 10% off coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or a Coffee Club subscription with code WALSH: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/walsh
Good Ranchers - Use code "WALSH" at checkout and get $35 off your order: https://www.goodranchers.com/walsh
- - -
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, much has been said about the rise of hate and bigotry in America, but most of the people lamenting this alleged phenomenon are themselves huge proponents of bigotry and racism, so long as it's anti-white racism.
We have some egregious examples for you today.
Also, leftist justices on the Supreme Court embarrassed themselves during oral arguments over a freedom of religion case.
A former Twitter moderator talks about the trauma his job caused him, I reveal the hidden brilliance behind Time Magazine's Entertainer of the Year, and King and Queen victim Harry and Meghan get ready to release their new docuseries because all they want is privacy.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Using the Internet without ExpressVPN, it's like taking a phone call on speaker in public.
You don't know who's around to listen in on your private conversation.
And when you go online at VPN, Internet Service Providers, they can see every single website you visit.
And what's more, they can legally sell that information to ad companies and tech giants without your consent.
That's why I use ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN hides my online activity from Internet Service Providers.
My identity is anonymized and my data is encrypted for maximum protection.
That sounds complicated.
I assure you it really isn't.
All I have to do is fire up the app, click one button.
It's as simple as that.
Then I'm free to roam the internet without any prying eyes.
ExpressVPN works on all devices, including phones, laptops, and routers, so that everyone who shares your Wi-Fi can be protected.
So, secure your online activity by visiting expressvpn.com slash Walsh today.
That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com slash Walsh to get an extra three months free of ExpressVPN.
That's expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
Well, during all the recent controversy surrounding Kanye West and his statements, we have heard quite a lot about the dangers of demonizing and scapegoating entire groups of people.
We've heard condemnations of hate and of hateful language.
We've heard that there's a rising tide of hate and prejudice and that it's getting worse by the day, especially now that Elon Musk has taken over Twitter.
Allegedly, that's made it all worse.
And it's true, of course, that we shouldn't demonize groups.
That part is true.
I agree with the people who warn against such bigotries.
The problem is that many of those people do not agree with themselves.
And if they are wondering why their anti-hate sermons, their homilies of love and togetherness, tend to fall on deaf ears as the alleged hate tide continues to rise despite their protests, they may want to take a long look in the mirror.
The fact is that the very system now thrown into hysteria about the dangers of fanatical racism has itself fanatically promoted racism for many years and continues to do so today.
You can call this whataboutism.
I don't really care.
I am unapologetically saying whatabout.
Whatabout is a perfectly valid argument that needs to be brought up very often.
So, what about the openly genocidal racism that the corporate media, Hollywood, academia, the left generally pushes without apology and without shame every single day?
What about it?
Are we ever going to talk about it?
Are any of the eager denouncers ever going to get around to denouncing that?
Well, I know the answer, but I asked the question anyway, rhetorically.
Last night, thanks to a repost from Chris Ruffo, a video went viral of a Rutgers professor named Brittany Cooper speaking at an online conference hosted by a popular website called The Root.
Now, this video is actually from a year ago, went viral back then.
But, and I may have even mentioned it on the show back then, but the ensuing outrage, almost entirely coming from conservatives on social media, amounted to absolutely nothing.
Cooper was not fired, was not suspended, was not denounced or even lightly reprimanded.
Nothing.
She's still teaching college students today.
This in spite of the fact that she was on camera preaching the most virulent form of anti-white racism imaginable.
Just watch.
I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate, right?
The real sort of issue here, and you know, I've heard people sort of say it, is one, I think that white people viscerally fear.
It's not that white people don't know, right, what they have done.
They know.
They fear that there is no other way to be human but the way in which they are human which is to so you know like you talk to white people and whenever you really want to have a reckoning about it they say stuff like you know it's just human nature if y'all had all of this power you would have done the same thing right And it's like, no, that's what white humans did.
White human beings thought, there's a world here and we own it.
Prior to them, black and brown people have been sailing across oceans, interacting with each other for centuries without total subjugation, domination, and colonialism.
We have seen, uh, what a, what a show this iteration of Treatment of other human beings means and that my hope is that we would do it differently You know in the moments when we have some power
White people are committed to being villains, she says.
Now put any other group in that sentence and she loses her job.
Black people are committed to being villains.
Asian people are committed to being villains.
Gay people are committed to being villains.
Jews are committed to being villains.
Literally any other group at all in that sentence and it becomes the sort of statement that her career cannot survive.
And we haven't even heard the worst of it yet.
Not even close.
Perhaps more troubling, given her profession, is the hallucinatory version of world history that Brittany Cooper, who refers to herself, by the way, as Professor Crunk, offers up.
And we haven't heard the worst of that yet either.
She says that black and brown people were sailing around the world and interacting with each other without wars of conquest, without subjugation, without colonization.
There's nothing to say about that claim except that it is totally, absurdly, ridiculously false.
There is not a shred of truth to it.
Whichever groups qualify as black or brown, especially those groups that lived in North America or Africa, what we know for certain is that they were slaughtering and enslaving each other without mercy since time immemorial.
European empires did not invent the idea of subjugating a foreign land and turning it into a vassal state.
And they didn't even practice the most brutal form of the practice.
This was utterly commonplace across the entire globe for millennia.
So Professor Crunk is either so dumb as to qualify as medically brain-damaged, or she's a hateful, lying propagandist, or perhaps some combination of both, and that's what I suspect.
She continues by offering her solution to the white problem, her final solution, we might say.
Listen.
That's the thing that white people don't trust us to do because they are so corrupt.
You know, their thinking is so morally and spiritually bankrupt about power that they can't let, you know, they fear viscerally, existentially letting go of power because they cannot imagine that there's another way to be.
It is either that you dominate or you are dominated.
And isn't it sad that that is spiritually who they are and that they can't imagine a sort of more expansive notion of the world?
The thing I want to say to you is we got to take these motherfuckers out.
But I know, but like, we can't say that, right?
We can't say, like, I don't believe in a project of violence.
I truly don't.
Because I think in the end that our souls suffer from that.
The world didn't start when white people arrived in America and tried to tell all the rest of us how things were going to go.
There were people out here making worlds.
Africans and indigenous people.
Being brilliant and, you know, libraries and inventions and, you know, vibrant notions of humanity and cross-cultural exchange long before white people showed up being raggedy and violent and terrible and trying to take everything from everybody.
So we hear again her fantasy land alternate retelling of world history, adding in the detail that Africans somehow made it to North America before Europeans.
She then imagines that indigenous people had libraries, which would be difficult considering that most of the tribes didn't even have a written language, much less did they have books.
And she says that they lived peacefully until raggedy white people introduced violence to the Western Hemisphere.
And she's right.
You know, North America was entirely free of violence before first contact with Europeans.
Free of violence, if you don't count scalping, cannibalism, human sacrifice, rape, pillage, murder, war, slavery, conquest, etc.
Other than all of that, it was quite peaceful, really.
Not that Professor Crunk is an advocate of peace.
She says herself that she really wants to take these mother effers out.
That they are corrupt and she wants to take these mother effers out.
Again, just imagine.
Black people are so corrupt.
We need to take these mother effers out.
Gay people are so corrupt.
We need to take these mother effers out.
Jews are so corrupt.
We need to take these mother effers out.
Any of those statements and you are done.
Forever.
You're never getting another job.
You're getting deplatformed from everything.
You're losing your bank accounts.
You are losing everything.
Unless you put white people in there.
The only reason she stopped short of fully promoting such a strategy is that she can't say that, she says.
And besides, she's worried that exterminating white people might be injurious to the souls of their exterminators.
And she's right about that second part, but not the first.
In fact, she can say that she wants to murder all white people.
She did say it, and she suffered no consequence, whatever, for doing so.
Later in the video, she speaks wistfully and hopefully about the coming end of whiteness and assures herself and the audience that You know, eventually white people will be extinct and non-white people can get back to living in peace without the, quote, inconvenience of their presence.
It is, again, in summary, a genocidally hateful and racist diatribe.
She is calling for, or at the very least fantasizing openly about, the extermination of an entire race of people.
And she presented this to a media publication on video and suffered no consequence for it.
You can, in fact, in this country, openly call for the extermination of white people without the slightest worry that any legal, professional, or reputational damage will result.
Just ask Nick Cannon.
He is currently, as he has been for several years, the host of The Masked Singer on Fox.
He's had high-paying, high-profile jobs on national TV for the better part of this century.
And yet, infamously, he has openly called white people savages and postulated that their lack of, quote, melanin makes them subhuman.
Let's just take a trip down memory lane and watch this again.
This is from a couple of years ago, and here's what Nick Cannon said.
Melanin comes with compassion.
Melanin comes with soul, that we call it.
We call it soul.
We soul brothers and sisters.
That's the melanin that connects us.
So the people that don't have it have, are, are a little, and I'm going to say this carefully, are a little less And where the term actually comes from, because I'm bringing it all the way back around to Minister Farrakhan, to where they may not have the compassion, or when they were sent to the mountains of Caucasus, when they didn't have the power of the sun, that the sun then started to deteriorate them.
So then they're acting out of Fear.
They're acting out of low self-esteem.
They're acting out of a deficiency.
So therefore, the only way that they can act is evil.
The only way they can, they have to rob, steal, rape, kill, and fight in order to survive.
Exactly.
So then these people who didn't have what we had, and when I say we, I speak of the melanated people.
Right.
They had to be savages.
They had to be barbaric.
They had, because they're in these Nordic mountains.
They're in these rough, uh, torrential environments.
So they, they're acting as animals.
Right.
So they're the ones that are actually closer to animals.
They're the ones that are actually the true savages.
Hmm.
Acting as animals.
So it's the guy that has like 10 kids with six different women or something.
Um, after that podcast interview, Nick Cannon did, for a short period, lose his job, which he quickly regained and has gotten back to his TV career without any issue.
But the momentary slap on the wrist only came because during the same podcast, he said that black people are, quote, the true Hebrews.
Which is an incoherent talking point we've also heard from Kanye West.
Also, not nearly as vicious or hateful as what he said about white people generally.
So, Cannon was chastised for the true Hebrew's comment.
He even briefly lost his job for it.
But there was never any chastisement, never any denouncement from any notable person or organization for literally calling all white people subhuman animalistic savages.
Because that's the kind of thing you're allowed to say.
Not just allowed to say, but rewarded for saying.
Anti-white bigotry is not simply tolerated, it is celebrated.
Professor Crunk and Nick Cannon aren't living in a vacuum.
These viciously anti-white sentiments can be heard from celebrities, from college professors, from government officials, and many others.
The sentiments are expressed out loud, enacted into law.
They are set as policy, embedded into the system.
The Biden administration gave out COVID relief, according to a racial hierarchy, with whites at the bottom, where I suppose these savage, animalistic villains belong.
As far as interracial violence go, you know, because we hear that all the hate is leading to violence.
Well, okay, let's talk about that.
Twice as many white people fall victim to interracial homicide as committed, and that's just homicides.
We haven't even, you know, we've seen many videos of groups of people in one race stomping the hell out of an individual of another race, but the victim in those videos is almost always white.
We have rarely, if ever, seen it go the other way.
Certainly not recently.
What this tells us is that anti-white racism is permissible in our culture.
It is the only totally permissible bigotry that remains.
And because it is permissible, it is also dangerous.
It is the most dangerous.
There are other kinds of bigotry that exist.
But if society generally condemns a form of bigotry, then the danger that bigotry can pose is very much mitigated.
Because it is condemned by almost everyone, and certainly by almost all the most powerful people.
Somehow it goes with anti-white racism.
And nobody who speaks out against racism and bigotry, and yet neglects to specifically denounce anti-white racism, should be taken seriously.
That's what this comes down to.
If you're wondering why, nobody can take you seriously.
It's because you see what we just played there, and you either don't care, or you applaud.
And that's why.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Give the most essential gift of all, America's best meat and seafood from Good Ranchers.
With discounts on orders of five boxes or more, you can save on gifts for the whole family.
When you give a box of Good Ranchers, you're giving them a true steakhouse experience with 100% American USDA prime cuts of beef.
Chicken and seafood, other meat delivery companies and even your local grocery store.
What they're going to do is they're going to import lower quality meat from overseas.
Don't give your friends and family less than America's Best this year.
Not sure what to order?
Well, Good Ranchers now offers gift cards so you can let your friends and family members choose for themselves or you can give the gift of a subscription and inflation-proof someone's meat budget for them.
Go to GoodRanchers.com, use code WALSH to check out to get $35 off your gift.
That's goodranchers.com code Walsh for $35 off Good Ranchers American Meat Delivered.
As we mentioned yesterday, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a religious liberty case challenging Colorado's so-called anti-discrimination laws, which require Christian business owners to participate in gay weddings.
The challenge is being brought by a Christian web designer who doesn't want to be forced to design a website to advertise or facilitate a gay wedding.
The oral arguments were pretty interesting.
We'll play a couple clips here.
I want you to listen first to Kintanji Brown-Jackson.
And she manages to rope the film It's a Wonderful Life into some kind of strange hypothetical, which is meant to prove that Christian business owners shouldn't have religious liberty.
And it's, you know, it's hard to connect these dots, but she tries it.
Let's listen.
Hurley did the exact same analysis to say, is the parade organizers otherwise... But Hurley was a private association.
It wasn't a public business.
What I'm asking you is, I have a public business.
I'm a photographer.
My belief is that, you know, I'm doing, it's a wonderful life scenes.
That's what I'm offering.
Okay, I want to do video depictions of It's a Wonderful Life.
And I, knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product.
Everybody else can, I'll give to everybody else, I'll sell them anything they want, just not the It's a Wonderful Life depictions.
I'm expressing something, right, for your purposes at that speech.
What about, what's the other step?
It's speech and I can say anti-discrimination laws can't make me sell the It's a Wonderful Life package to non-white individuals.
In the same way, I would say first of all, in the same way that this court, when there is a message and a status and it's overlapping, the court would say that message wins in that instance.
So I don't think that that message is in that hypothetical.
OK, we'll talk more about that in a second.
There's one other clip I want to play.
So she's imagining here a scenario where a photographer is doing some holiday photos and has different packages available, which, you know, as photographers do, but this photographer It's a Wonderful Life package, but you have to be white.
So maybe there's a black family that says, oh, the It's a Wonderful Life photos.
We'd like to take some.
Sorry, you got to be white for those.
It's only for white people.
Can I interest you in the Black Panther package?
That would be more suitable for you.
This is the situation she's imagining because, right, that's going to happen somewhere.
And she also talks about This concept of a public business.
I don't even know what that means.
We're talking about a private business.
What do you mean public business?
They've invented like this category.
It's a public business.
Well, it's public in the sense that the business exists in the public.
Okay, so what she's postulating is that what would qualify as a private business?
If a web designer She has her business, and as far as I know, it's just her running.
So it's a one-woman show, web designer.
And if that doesn't qualify as a private business, then what the hell does?
Is it a business that is not open to anyone in the public?
So it's a business, but you won't sell anything to anyone or provide any services to anyone.
It's that sort of business.
Just because you are a business that offers a good or service doesn't make you public.
It's still a private business because it is run by a private individual.
Anyway, we'll talk more about that, but there's another hypothetical she offers, and she has another sort of interesting business proposal.
Let's listen to this.
She is implicitly saying, you know, by selling this I'm going to be violating my own beliefs.
So let me just ask you another quick hypo.
So I'm trying to understand the extent to which this matters that she's a speaker as opposed to a restaurant.
So I sell food and one line of products that I make is from scratch for particular customers
that are based on my grandmother's cherished family recipes.
My dearly departed grandmother was clear that she only wanted to provide this kind of nourishment
for people who share our same religious heritage.
So I call these products Grandma Helen's Protestant Provisions.
And I sit with each customer who comes in and I hear about their faith and their family
and I customize the recipe for them after having this discussion.
So the food is not expressive, right?
I'm not speaking in my food.
But I am trying to convey that only certain people get to partake in this product.
Can I do that consistent with the First Amendment or not?
No, and in this situation, as you said, in terms of a caterer, the caterer is not engaging in speech.
Okay.
So there's the business proposal right there.
So we've heard enough of that.
I kind of like that business idea.
You know, I'm fine with it.
So you got a restaurant, you know, a chef, and offers different menu items depending on your religion.
So these are the Protestant provisions.
If you're sitting down, the waiter goes up to you, asks you about your faith, and if you reveal yourself to be Protestant, then you get access to the whole menu.
If you're Catholic, then they will give you an unleavened wafer.
They say, "Well, this is what you're allowed to have because you're Catholic."
And if you're atheist, they invite you to the back in the kitchen and they burn you
at the stake, actually, back in the kitchen.
They're not going to serve you then.
They're not going to burn you and then serve you.
They'd burn you at the stake and then they would, you know, maybe bury you in the back or something.
So that's the business idea that she's proposing.
Because that's totally realistic, right?
That would definitely happen in reality.
This is the reason why I like these hypotheticals.
And there are many others like this.
There were other hypotheticals that Contagion Brown Jackson offered.
We've seen this on cable news when they're coming up with all these, well, if we allow this, then what if this other thing happens?
It shows how desperate they are to come up with some kind of some sort of plausible slippery slope scenario.
They are desperate to come up with something and they can't do it.
They've had many shots at this thing, and they can't come up with any actually plausible slip-or-slip scenario for it.
We start with giving basic religious freedom to private business owners.
We give basic religious freedom to a woman who designs websites.
And then, next thing you know, total chaos ensues.
They're not able to bridge that gap.
They can't explain it.
And so they end up with all these hypotheticals of things that would never, ever really happen.
And it is very possible also to separate the religious liberty cases from all of these others, because there's a crucial distinction.
We talked about it yesterday.
And in my mind, the crucial distinction is not even that it's based on religious conviction.
That's got nothing to do with it.
The crucial distinction is that in all of the real-life cases, whether it's the ones that have ended up in front of the Supreme Court or other ones that haven't made it to the Supreme Court, In all of the real-life cases, they are centered around gay weddings, and it is about private business owners.
It's about government entities trying to force private business owners to participate in an event that they object to.
That's the difference.
It's a very clear distinction.
So it is easy to delineate between a web designer who doesn't want to be a participant in this event and making a website for the event is to participate in it to some extent.
She doesn't want to do that.
It's easy to distinguish between that and someone who says, oh, we're not going to serve you any food at all because of your religious convictions.
Or you can't get these photographs taken because you're black.
If someone is sitting down in your restaurant and they're just trying to have lunch, and you serve them food, that's not you participating in some kind of formal event, unless you want to call lunch itself a formal event.
The photographer taking pictures of a black family, that's not them participating in some kind of event.
However, if the black family, or white doesn't matter, the race of the family, if a family said to them, we want you to come to this actual event that we're putting on, we want you to take photographs at this event, then of course the photographer should have every right to say, well, what is the event?
I'm not just going to, like, I want to know about the event.
And if it's an event that I object to, whether you agree with my objections or not, obviously you don't because you're the one throwing the event, if I object to that, I'm not going to, I don't want to be a part of it.
And it wouldn't just, there are actual plausible scenarios.
So the left, they're trying to come up with their slippery slope and it's completely ridiculous.
They have all these things that would never happen.
The slippery slope on the other end is actually plausible.
So if we say that the cake baker or the photographer or the web designer doesn't have the right to say no to the gay wedding, what happens next?
What's the slippery slope there?
Well, you don't even need a slippery slope because we've already extinguished religious liberty, so that's not even a slope.
We don't have to project about when we've already done it.
But we can see where it would go next.
For example, like we talked about yesterday, divorce parties are a real thing that actually happen, and people have invitations for them.
They make cakes for them.
They have photographs taken.
Should you be required to go and partake in a divorce party because you own a business?
What if it's some... What if you're a liberal business owner and some... one of these alleged far-right extremist groups comes along and says, hey, we're having a big celebration.
We need you to come take pictures.
We need you to bake a cake.
Should you be required to be a part of it?
I mean, what if it's a...
Speaking of far-right extremists, you know, pro-lifers, far-right dangerous extremists.
That's what we are.
We're far-right dangerous extremists.
Well, what if you're a pro-abortion baker, and Roe v. Wade was just overturned, and I come to you and I say, I need you to make a cake, customized cake, and it needs to say on it, hooray for the end of abortion.
Hooray for the end of Roe.
Should I be able to compel you to make that cake?
If you say, I don't believe in that, I don't want to make that, there's a million other bakers out there, go to one of them.
Nope, you have to do it.
You are forced to do it.
Get back there, slave, and make it.
Very easy to distinguish between these two.
But you shouldn't even need to because, as I said before, You know, the real answer, and this is not the answer the Supreme Court is going to arrive at, but the correct answer is actually kind of the absolute position that you should be able to deny service to anyone for whatever reason you want, and that should be it.
Freedom of association.
You know, you shouldn't be required as a private business owner to provide a good or service to anyone, whatever your reason is for not wanting to.
And if you have truly awful bigoted reasons, if you do hang up the sign that says no blacks allowed, no one is going to do that.
No business would actually do that.
But if there was one in the whole country that did, they would be out of business in 30 minutes because of it.
Alright, so the White House has responded to questions about the Twitter files that were released showing that the Biden campaign and other political operatives had information about Hunter Biden's laptop suppressed on Twitter at the behest, at their behest rather.
So Karen Jean-Pierre says that, well she says this was inappropriate and she issued a formal apology from the White House.
Just kidding of course, this is what she actually said.
Is it the White House view that these decisions were made appropriately in light of what has come out?
Which decisions?
By whom?
By Twitter.
By Twitter on, okay.
So, look, we see this as an interesting or a coincidence, if I may, that he would so haphazardly, Twitter would so haphazardly push this distraction.
That is full of old news, if you think about it.
And at the same time, Twitter is facing very real and very serious questions about the rising volume of anger, hate, and anti-Semitism on their platform,
and how they're letting it happen.
And, you know, the president said last week, more leaders need to speak out and reject this.
And it's very alarming and very dangerous.
Old news, she says.
It's old news.
It's old news that we rigged the election by suppressing relevant information and lying about it.
Her defense is, yeah, it happened, but it's old news.
We already knew about that.
It's ancient history, a couple years ago.
And what is this rising hate claim?
We hear it again.
Rising hate.
As we talked about in the opening, there is rising hate in this country, but it's not the kind of hate she's talking about.
It's not the hate that she would acknowledge.
How do you measure hate on Twitter?
Because they're specifically telling us that there's more hate on Twitter than there was before Musk took over.
How do you measure that?
What units of measurement do we use to measure hate on a social media platform?
How exactly do we do that?
Well, if you measure on Twitter now, there are 89 hate units, whereas before there was 32.
When was the utopian time of no hate or low hate on Twitter?
When was that exactly?
Give me the years when that was the case.
We can go back and scroll through some tweets to see if that's actually true.
Speaking of Twitter, I also want to play this for you.
Maybe you've seen some of these clips.
Yoel Roth is a former Twitter official, former head of the Trust and Safety Division.
And he was at a conference.
Recently, about conversations on democracy in the digital age, where he talks about the justification, talks about many things.
One of those things is the justification for banning Trump from social media, and it all has to do with the trauma that he and other members of the Twitter staff suffered.
Let's listen to that.
That one I don't think was a mistake.
January 6th.
So it starts on the 6th, but it also starts prior to that.
That's correct.
In the weeks leading up, in the weeks between election day and January 6th, Twitter moderated hundreds, I think the final number ended up as like 140 separate tweets from just at real Donald Trump that violated various policies.
Yes, he was good at that.
Every morning it was a new tweet.
Much of it was recirculating some of the same narratives, and all of it was focused on the ultimately false claim that the 2020 election had been stolen.
And so we're going into the events of the 6th, and there's that context.
There's the centrality of his account.
So you let him get away with it for a long time, in other words.
Well, we'd been enforcing on it, right?
So we restricted the tweets.
We put warnings on them.
You couldn't like them.
You couldn't retweet them.
But we didn't ban him because it was a relevant part of a moment in American politics.
Right.
The events of the 6th happen, and if you talk to content moderators who worked on January 6th, myself included, the word that nearly everybody uses is trauma.
We experienced those events, not some of us as Americans, but not just as Americans or as citizens, but as people working on sort of how to prevent harm on the Internet, we saw the clearest possible example of what it looked like for things to move from online to off.
Right.
We saw the way that rhetoric about a stolen election was being mobilized on sites like thedonald.win.
We saw the trafficking of this content.
Terrible, very tragic story there.
So forget about, you know, forget about young men storming the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.
That's not, you know, that's not the kind of trauma we're talking about in modern, in the modern world.
People that are suffering trauma are those who were content moderators on January 6th.
That's the story.
Our grandparents told stories of World War II, but for our generation, we will be telling our grandchildren stories of, you know, moderating content on January 6th.
Traumatized.
No, you're not traumatized, first of all.
You have no trauma.
You're just a huge, fragile, overgrown baby.
That's what you are.
You are an emotionally manipulative child.
You know how to define trauma?
Just for the record, what is trauma?
Well, here's how, because I looked it up, here's how the American Psychological Association defines it.
Not that I see them as much of an authority on most things these days, but here's what they say if you're curious
Trauma is an emotional response to a terrible event like an accident rape or natural disaster
Immediately after the event shock and denial are typical Longer-term reactions include unpredictable emotions, flashbacks, strained relationships, and physical symptoms like headaches or nausea.
Now you notice, first of all, that trauma is associated with events that you were a part of.
So you had a terrible accident.
You were raped.
You were involved in a natural disaster.
That's where the trauma comes from.
Now we have people talking about being traumatized by things that they were nowhere in the vicinity of.
And are you having flashbacks now because of news reports about January 6th?
Are you experiencing headaches and nausea two years out, still today, because some people trespassed in the Capitol while you were thousands of miles away in San Francisco?
Is that so, really?
And besides, how is your personal trauma Even if you were traumatized, which you weren't, how is that a reason to de-platform someone?
Your own personal trauma means that you can de-platform someone.
He also talked a little bit about Babylon Bee and how they ended up being de-platformed.
Let's hear some of that.
Okay, Babylon B, which is what got him to buy the thing, I think.
That's the one which was not particularly funny.
The Babylon B's man of the year is Rachel Levine.
Not funny.
I didn't agree they should have taken that down, but go ahead.
You know, it's interesting.
It's interesting to think about what the competing tensions around that are.
And I want to start by acknowledging that the targeting and the victimization of the trans community on Twitter is very real, very life-threatening, and extraordinarily serious.
We have seen from a number of Twitter accounts, including libs of TikTok notably, that there are orchestrated campaigns that particularly are singling out A group that is already particularly vulnerable within society.
And so, yeah, not only is it not funny, but it is dangerous and it does contribute to an environment that makes people unsafe in the world.
So let's start from a premise that it's fucked up.
But then, again, let's look at what Twitter's written policies are.
Twitter's written policies prohibit misgendering.
Full stop.
And the Babylon Bee, in the name of satire, misgendered Admiral Rachel Levine.
Twitter, nominally, but it's still misgendering.
And, you know, you can, there can be a very long and academic discussion of satire and sort of the lines there.
Interestingly, Apple tried to tease out this question of satire and political commentary in their own guidelines, which I think are also fraught.
But, you know, we landed on the side of enforcing our rules as written.
And that's how it got bought by Elon Musk, just in case you're interested.
He was mad about that.
I remember that.
Yeah.
We will never be a thriving society or civilization as long as people like that are running things.
And as it stands right now, that is that people like that are running things.
These emotionally fragile, utterly narcissistic, cry bullies.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And also, do any of them strike you, either one of the people on the stage, do they strike you as experts on comedy?
It's not funny.
That's not funny at all.
If you have an idea for a joke, are you going to run it by those two?
And of course, it's also not true.
It's being confirmed here, and there are many other cultures.
You don't have to play them all.
You've probably seen enough.
It's being confirmed.
What we already knew, which is that they were moderating things, intensely ideological, their moderation policies, and also based on emotion, based on the emotional whims of whoever happens to be in charge of moderating.
So that's what's being confirmed there.
We should also say, for the record, that this nonsense about it's life-threatening, that trans people are targeted on Twitter, it's threatening their lives.
You gotta explain that to me exactly.
How is your life threatened by a tweet?
Now, your life can be threatened by actual death threats, but the thing about the trans community on Twitter is that they are much more likely to be sending the death threat than to be receiving it.
Far and away, you want to talk about abuse and hate and all that.
The most abusive, hateful, vicious group of people on Twitter, and in fact, across the entire country, are trans activists.
Not even close.
Of course they're going to be vicious and hateful.
Think about how much they've been empowered.
And these are mostly men.
You know, it's mostly men identifying as women who are the most absolutely vicious because they've been empowered in this way.
They've already been empowered to appropriate the identities of women.
They've already been, you know, they've declared that they want to act out their fetishes in public and the entire culture has bowed before them in that regard.
Already narcissistic going in and so we've only just pumped up their egos even more and their sense of entitlement and all of that.
And that comes through in the way that they operate on Twitter.
All right, I do need to mention this because this is the most important story of the day.
Every day I'm reminded that I'm an old man and I'm getting older, and this is my reminder for today.
CNN has the report, Global pop sensation Blackpink have been chosen as Time Magazine's 2022 Entertainer of the Year, making the four-woman band the second K-pop artist to earn the title after BTS in 2020.
Selected by YG Entertainment, a big South Korean label that screens performers for star quality and trains them intensively, the quartet Jennie, Jisoo, Lisa, and Rosé found international stardom quickly after their 2016 debut.
Their first LP, The Album, sold more than 1 million copies in less than a month after its 2020 release.
I've honestly never heard of this group.
They are entertainers of the year, global sensations.
I've never heard of them.
I've been deprived of this sensational music.
I'm pretty upset about that, I gotta be honest.
They named their first album, Album.
So that shows you that these girls are creative geniuses.
And I'd like to learn more about them, learn more about these artists.
I thought that we could together listen to what is, I guess, their biggest hit to this point.
It's called Pink Venom, so black, pink, pink venom.
They certainly seem to enjoy the color pink.
What else do they have to say?
And I was really hoping that we could listen to some, and we are.
Let's listen.
Blackpink, Blackpink Blackpink, Blackpink
Kick in the door, wave in the cork Don't think about popping popcorn
I talk that talk, runways I walk walk Close my eyes, pop pop, I don't care
By one and two by two One finger and I'm about to collapse
Fake show, now a fancy team Makes no sense, you couldn't get a dollar out of me
And maybe that causes you to fall into despair and wish you were never born.
Maybe it makes death by woodchipper seem almost appealing by comparison.
Maybe, or maybe you're like me and you listen to the words and you hear the deeper meaning.
Like, they say Blackpink, Blackpink, Blackpink, Blackpink.
What does that mean?
It's their group name, right?
So they are announcing themselves.
They're boldly announcing, proclaiming their existence, their selfhood.
They're standing, staring into the void, saying, I am here, I exist.
It's a very existential way to begin the song.
And then they say, kicking the door, waving the cocoa.
What does that mean?
There are multiple interpretations for every verse.
In this case, what are they waving?
Cocoa.
Hot cocoa.
Why would they wave hot cocoa?
Wouldn't that cause burns?
That's the point.
Hot cocoa brings joy.
It can also burn you.
It's sweet.
It's hot.
It's scalding.
Isn't life like that?
I mean, isn't, is not life itself a battle between joy and tragedy?
Is it a battle or is it a game, an interplay, a dance?
That's the question that they're asking.
I want you to think about one other line because this is the best.
They say straight to your dome like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
What is straight to your dome?
What is it?
Well, it's whoa, whoa, whoa.
What does that mean?
It's impossible to say.
Why?
Because in modern culture, we're constantly bombarded by information, by noise, by messages, light, sound, right?
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
It's a lot to take in.
All of this is straight to your dome.
My dome.
The domes of the world.
What do you do with it?
How do you make sense of it?
What's the answer?
Blackpink doesn't have an answer, because life is not about finding the answer.
It's about inhabiting the moment for all its pain and joy that it might bring.
That's what I took out of that song.
Just insightful, beautiful, playful, yet tragic.
A masterpiece.
They are the entertainers of the year, and deservedly so.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Black Rifle Coffee Company is helping you knock out your holiday shopping with a ton
of awesome new products this year.
Shop the best brewing gear, thermoses, mugs, and apparel designed for folks who love country and coffee.
Black Rifle Coffee sources the most exotic roasts from around the globe All coffee is roasted here in the U.S.
by veteran-led teams of coffee experts.
You can stuff your Christmas stockings with the latest roast from America's Coffee for 10% off with my code WALSH.
Better yet, sign your Secret Santa up for a Coffee Club subscription.
Imagine the joy of a pre-scheduled coffee delivery.
Your favorite roasts, when you need them most.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Black Rifle Coffee is a veteran-founded and operated company.
They take pride in serving coffee and culture to people who love America.
Every purchase you make with Black Rifle helps support veteran and first responder causes.
Go to BlackRifleCoffee.com, use promo code Walsh for 10% off coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or when you sign up for a new coffee club subscription.
That's BlackRifleCoffee.com with promo code Walsh for 10% off.
Black Rifle Coffee supporting veterans and America's Coffee.
Chatius Gigadeus says, I guess TikTok having a whole different limited educational version for children in China wasn't a good enough hint for how detrimental it can be for youth if unrestricted.
You really need to spell things out for people nowadays.
Yeah, that should really be, it's like the classic thing if you go to a restaurant and you hear that none of the people working at the restaurant would ever eat the food.
Then that should really tell you something, and it's the same thing with TikTok.
They're serving up this food, they're serving this dish to our kids here in the West, but they would never eat it themselves.
So they have a limited version of TikTok that is, as Chidias points out, it's educational, you know, it's very toned down, very educational.
And yet they ship a totally different version to our country and to Western countries, and then we, as the incredibly stupid parents, say, oh yeah, sure, go ahead.
Here you go, nine-year-old daughter.
Here's a phone with full unrestricted internet access.
Go ahead and spend six hours a day on this app from China that the Chinese won't even let their kids use, at least not in the form that I'm giving it to you right now.
Tommy Wiseau says, letting your children have a TikTok account is child abuse.
Yeah, I'm right there with you.
I do think, and I don't say that lightly, but it is actually abusive.
To let your child be on TikTok is, I don't know how else to put it.
It is going to hurt them.
There's no chance of it doing anything but hurting them.
It can't do anything else.
It's not designed to do anything else.
It's only a question of how much does it hurt them.
Let's see.
Shin to Skull says, some interesting usernames today.
Matt, I remember that when I was young in the 80s and 90s, dangerous and stupid stunts and dares were performed in front of a live group or crowd where there's a better chance someone would dissuade a potentially deadly stunt or if someone was in dire need during or after a stunt or dare, people were there to step in and help.
These kids are alone in their room with no other voice of reason or backup on hand.
Scary.
Yeah, this is the point I was trying to point to yesterday.
And I think it's a very good point that we should think more about.
Because if we're talking about the blackout game, the choking dare,
whatever you want to call it.
And there were some comments pointing out, as I acknowledged yesterday,
that this TikTok didn't invent this.
The kids today that are doing this choke out thing are not the first ones to do it.
And yeah, I can remember, I never did it myself because it never seemed appealing,
like being choked never seemed appealing to me.
But I can remember being in middle school, and this was before social media, and people were doing this thing.
The difference is that, as you point out, it's a very important difference.
That yeah, kids have always been doing stupid things, participating in dumb dares and stunts and everything, especially boys, but girls as well.
It's always been the case.
But with social media, it becomes a delivery mechanism for this stuff.
It incentivizes doing it.
It provides even more incentive.
But then also, oftentimes kids are participating in these dangerous stunts and dares in isolation.
They're recording it so they can post it online if they survive whatever stupid thing they're doing.
Whereas in the past, yeah, you know, because you only do this for an audience.
That's the only reason kids do this.
It's like, because it's peer pressure and it's an audience and they're trying to get attention, like kids always have.
But in the past, if you wanted to have an audience and you wanted to get attention, then the audience was going to be in the room with you.
And so at the very least, if something went catastrophically wrong, you would hope that there'd be someone there to go get an adult, to call 911, whatever.
Now the audience is in virtual space, and oftentimes you put it in front of the audience after it's done, or even if it's being live-streamed, they're not physically there, which makes all this all the more dangerous.
Finally, Joshua says, wow, lol, I've been disappointed so many times today.
I don't know where to start.
Very sad to hear these things from you, Matt.
I knew it couldn't be true for too long.
Adios, my friend.
I don't know what part of the show this is in reference to.
Tell me it's Santa Claus.
Tell me it's because I said that my kids believe in Santa Claus.
I'm sorry we have to part ways, but please tell me that's the reason.
Because that's just hilarious.
Jman says, Matt would be a brutal dictator, probably would have to live exactly like he sees fit or not at all.
Now you're getting the point.
That's the whole theocratic fascist dictator deal.
The new Jeremy's range of hair, skin, and body products is here, and no one will enjoy gifting it more this Christmas than me and the Sweet Baby Gang.
Not just because gift bundles are 30% off right now, which is a great deal, but because the new Jeremy's body wash and facial cleanser are made with bamboo charcoal.
This is charcoal body wash.
That's right, the charcoal of bamboo plants.
Which is a thing, I guess.
The only thing standing between pandas and their well-deserved demise is bamboo.
I get it.
So we're going to chop down all the bamboo, put it in a body wash, And all the pandas finally die as they deserve.
This is our sales pitch, I guess.
This Christmas, your family will love receiving a Jeremy's Razors gift bundle.
What's not to love about tea tree and peppermint shampoo and conditioner, oatmeal and citrus body soap, but don't forget bamboo charcoal.
Every morning, as your family enjoys the freshness of an aloe vera-infused cleanser, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that they're starving the world's remaining pandas to death.
And they're all gonna die, not just die, but die agonizing, slow deaths.
It's getting pretty dark.
Give yourself the gift of giving Jeremy's 100% woke-free products and get 30% off gift bundles before December 15th to arrive in time for Christmas.
Just go to dailywire.com slash Walsh and kill all the pandas.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
It's been nearly three years since Meghan Markle and Prince Harry dramatically announced that they were stepping down from their roles in the royal family and moving to America.
They said that they valued their privacy and could no longer tolerate living under the white-hot glare of the spotlight.
Their stated reasoning may have been You know, convincing to you at the time if you were dumb enough to believe that Meghan Markle is the sort of girl who marries into royalty because she values her privacy.
But if you're at least intelligent enough to score higher than an earthworm on an IQ test, then you knew that Harry and Meghan were seeking attention, not shirking from it.
And if you're in this latter category, the smarter-than-an-earthworm demographic, you have not then been surprised to find that this private and humble ex-royal couple has spent the last couple of years seeking attention wherever they can find it.
They've done multiple tell-all interviews, one conducted by Oprah, they've signed book deals, they've signed multi-million dollar podcast deals.
Meghan has posed for literally every magazine cover in existence outside of maybe Car and Driver magazine, although maybe she got around to that too.
They have sought a very peculiar form of privacy indeed.
A form that involves appearing on every sort of medium, willfully attracting attention, and then monetizing that attention.
This is the kind of private life they wish to lead.
And now they're going to continue their privacy tour by starring in a Netflix docu-series, which premieres this weekend.
And here's the trailer.
It's really hard to look back on it now and go, what on earth happened?
You hear that?
That is the sound of hearts breaking all around the world.
She's becoming a royal rock star.
Everything changed.
There's a hierarchy of the family.
You know, there's leaking, but there's also planting of stories.
There was a war against Meghan to suit other people's genders.
It's about hatred.
It's about race.
It's a dirty game.
The pain and suffering of women marrying into this institution.
This beating frenzy.
I realized they're never going to protect you.
I was terrified.
I didn't want history to repeat itself.
No one knows the full truth.
We know the full truth.
How many times are they going to milk this exact sentence?
No one has heard this before.
No one knows the full truth.
We've heard you tell the supposed full truth about 46 times in the last year.
So I believe the official title of this is Give Me Attention the Movie.
Either that or they're just calling it Harry and Meghan, which is the same idea either way.
Of course, everything that Meghan Markle is involved in, starting with her marriage, is at its core a publicity stunt and a sham, and this film is no different.
In fact, eagle-eyed viewers have noticed that between the two main trailers released for the series, at least three of the images in these trailers of media harassing and hounding the couple are taken out of context from events where neither Harry nor Meghan were even present.
BBC.com has this report.
A photograph of paparazzi appears in the first trailer just before a clip of Harry saying he had to do everything that he could to protect his family.
However, it is said to have actually been taken at a Harry Potter premiere five years before the Duke and Duchess even met.
A clip in the second trailer, which apparently illustrates paparazzi hounding the couple, was actually taken when former model Katie Price arrived at Crawley Magistrate's Court last December.
Shortly before that shot, the Duke of Sussex is heard speaking of the pain and suffering of women marrying into the royal family, adding that he did not want history to repeat itself, as a clip shows men apparently chasing someone with cameras.
The clip was in fact recorded as Price arrived to be sentenced over a drunk driving charge.
One section of the second trailer also features clips of reporters, photographers, and cameramen apparently in close pursuit of the couple.
However, one media crush seen by viewers was not targeting the royal family, the royal couple, but rather President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen leaving his New York apartment in 2019 to serve time in prison for financial crimes, campaign finance violations, and lying to Congress.
So, it's pretty hilarious that they crammed three misleading images just into the trailer.
Who knows how many lies they'll be able to pack into the full series.
It's also grotesque, but that's par for the course with Harry and Meghan.
These two may have ostensibly stepped down from their royal occupation, but only to exchange one throne and one crown for another, because they are now king and queen victim.
And it is a symbolic, figurehead-type position, just like the one they left.
But it also carries a considerable amount of power in our culture, not to mention profit potential.
They are, in many ways, the perfect representation of victimhood in modern Western culture.
This is the service they're providing us, is by showing us what victimhood really entails these days.
They are our victimhood mascots.
Immensely privileged, Absurdly wealthy, living lives of unimaginable comfort, surrounded by ostentatious luxury.
They're celebrated by the media, they're fawned over, they're applauded.
Yet they can't stop whining.
They are never happy.
None of their riches, no amount of public adulation, will convince these spoiled, self-centered brats that they're anything but oppressed and downtrodden.
And what's more, this is another hallmark of modern victimhood, they maintain their victimhood delusions even as they viciously attack the ones they claim to be helplessly victimized by.
So Harry has turned on his own family, aired their dirty laundry, monetized its airing, and yet still pretends to be somehow the injured party.
Now, are their tears fake?
Is it all an act?
Well, yes and no.
Yes in the sense that Meghan Markle is a sociopath who has probably never experienced a fully authentic human emotion in her life, but no in the sense that, you know, to the extent that they can feel emotions at all, they are actually upset.
I believe that part.
Because part of the curse of being a narcissist is that you're never satisfied.
No matter how much attention you get, it's never enough.
So long as you remain still standing on a planet that revolves around the sun rather than around you.
So long as there are people out there living lives that have nothing to do with you, and talking about things other than you, and prioritizing their own well-being over yours.
So long as any of that remains the case, you will feel persecuted.
Because narcissism is insatiable.
There are no happy narcissists, no content narcissists.
Whatever they have, they should always have more in their minds.
Whatever anyone else does or says, they should have always done or said something different.
They're always being attacked.
They're always being conspired against.
Everyone is whispering about them behind their backs, they think.
Narcissism and victimhood go hand in hand.
Our culture of victimhood is really then a culture of narcissism.
And Harry and Meghan are its perfect representatives and creations.
And for that, they are today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, hope to see you there.
