Ep. 1103 - Black Cops Beat Black Man. Media Blames White Supremacy.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, five black police officers are under arrest after fatally beating a black man. Everyone involved is black, yet that hasn't stopped the media from pinning the blame on "white supremacy." Also, police departments across the country have been lowering their standards in order to attract new and "diverse" recruits. Does that play into the incident in Memphis? Plus, the Paul Pelosi 911 call is finally revealed, which also reveals the real story in that bizarre situation. A trans figure skater accidentally gives us the funniest video of the year so far. And the pop star Sam Smith tries to become the white male Lizzo. The results are as tedious as they are revolting.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Pre-order the book “Stolen Youth” by Bethany Mandel and Karol Markowicz: https://amzn.to/3RevAt9
Use code DONOTCOMPLY to get 40% off annual DailyWire+ membership plans and watch the brand new series, Master’s Program with Dennis Prager: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Get 40% off Jeremy’s Razors subscriptions at www.jeremysrazors.com
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
- - -
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, five black police officers are under arrest after fatally beating a black man.
Everyone involved is black, yet that hasn't stopped the media from pinning the blame on white supremacy, of course.
Also, police departments across the country have been lowering their standards in order to attract new and, quote, diverse recruits.
Does that play into the incident in Memphis?
Plus, the Paul Pelosi 911 call is finally revealed, which also reveals the real story in that whole bizarre situation.
A trans figure skater accidentally gives us the funniest video of the year so far, hands down.
And the pop star Sam Smith tries to become the white male Lizzo.
The results are as tedious as they are revolting.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
That's the whole goal, really.
If this is at odds with your goals, if you're tired of government playing games with your savings and your retirement plans, then you need to get in touch with the experts at Birch Gold today.
For over 5,000 years, gold has withstood inflation, geopolitical turmoil, and stock market crashes.
Now you can own gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Text Walsh to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold, and then talk to one of their precious metals specialists with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews.
You can trust Birch Gold to help protect your savings.
So, text Walsh to 989898 and protect yourself with gold today.
That's Walsh to 989898 today.
On Friday evening, after several days of hype and buildup, video of the incident that led to murder charges for five Memphis police officers was finally released.
The body camera footage is a couple different places where the footage is coming from.
The body camera is harder to interpret.
We see Tyree Nichols fighting with the cops after having been apparently pulled over for reckless driving.
But the footage is sort of blurry and jittery and difficult to discern.
The story is really told by footage from security cameras mounted to street lamps, and there we can see the cops take turns beating and kicking Nichols while he's restrained.
The five of them together should have been able to figure out a way to subdue one man without pummeling him to death, but these officers decided to use much more force than what the situation would seem to require.
In fact, If you saw the video from the streetlamp security cameras without any other context, you wouldn't think that it was an arrest at all, but rather like gang warfare.
Looked like street violence, not officers of the law executing an arrest.
And the end result is that Tyree Nichols died in the hospital a few days after the beating.
Now, there's still much we don't know about this incident, and even though the video is quite brutal, it's still always worth keeping in mind that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I wouldn't be surprised if more details emerge in the coming weeks and months that will, that while probably not exculpatory for the officers, it's very hard to imagine what kind of context could possibly let them off the hook here, it might at least help to explain What exactly was going on?
Did one or some of these cops have some sort of personal grudge against Nichols?
Is there a history here that we haven't been told about which might explain why the beating looks so personal?
I have no idea.
Hopefully, we'll find out more as time goes on.
What I do know, though, is that this event, whatever precipitated it, whatever explains it, Certainly had absolutely nothing to do with racism.
Because this was a black man, beaten by black cops, who worked for a department run by a black woman, in a majority black city, governed by a majority black city council.
There are no white faces anywhere near this incident.
Which means that no honest and intelligent person could try to pin this one on whiteness or white supremacy.
Well, unfortunately for all of us, honest and intelligent is a bar too high for many people, especially those in the media, to meet.
And so leftist activists and media propagandists immediately went to work trying to explain how the actions of five black men under the leadership of a black woman somehow represent an act of anti-black racism.
Van Jones over on CNN got the race baiting kicked off on Friday night with an op-ed titled, quote, The police who killed Tyree Nichols were black, but they might still have been driven by racism.
Jones goes on to explain, One of the sad facts about anti-black racism is that black people ourselves are not immune to its pernicious effects.
Society's message that black people are inferior, unworthy, and dangerous is pervasive.
Over many decades, numerous experiments have shown that these ideas can infiltrate black minds as well as white.
Self-hatred is a real thing.
At the end of the day, it is the race of the victim who is brutalized, not the race of the violent cop, that is most relevant in determining whether racial bias is a factor in police violence.
Whether racial bias is a factor in police files.
It's hard to imagine five cops of any color beating a white person to death under similar circumstances.
And it's almost impossible to imagine five black cops giving a white arrestee the kind of beatdown that Nichols allegedly received.
There you have it.
White people are to blame, even for things that white people don't do.
Van Jones bases all of this on his own, essentially his own lack of imagination.
Because he says that it's hard to imagine a white person treated this way by cops.
Hard to imagine.
And it might indeed be hard for him to imagine, because he works for a media organization that simply ignores every occasion where a white person is killed by police.
It's not that Jones can't imagine a white person falling victim to police brutality, it's that he chooses not to acknowledge such cases when they happen.
He chooses not to remember, for example, the worst police shooting ever caught on film, the one where Daniel Shaver, an unarmed white man, is executed in the middle of a hotel hallway while on his knees begging for his life.
Shaver's skin color makes his story inconvenient, and so it's simply ignored, like so many other stories just like it.
Jones got to this narrative early, and many soon followed, though.
though over the past few days, Twitter has been full of tweets like this one from anti-racism
educator quote unquote Tim Wise, who says, anyone who says the killing of Tyree Nichols
can't be about racism because the cops were also black, really doesn't understand how
white supremacy or anti-blackness work.
And then Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost says, doesn't matter what color those police
officers are, the murder of Tyree Nichols is anti-black and the result of a system built
on white supremacy.
New commentator Mondaire Jones tweeted, if you think the Memphis police officers had
to be white in order to exhibit anti-blackness, you need to take that AP African American
Studies course Ron DeSantis just banned.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
It is, of course, more accurate to say that if you think violence committed by five black men is somehow the fault of anti-black racism, then you've probably taken way too many African American Studies courses.
In fact, that kind of insane, paranoid thinking is exactly why those sorts of courses shouldn't exist in public school in the first place.
And you can find this kind of messaging, of course, elsewhere on social media, like on TikTok, where this white woman explains why every white person is directly guilty of carrying out this beating.
You may think you have a good alibi, maybe because you were in bed asleep in your home 500 miles away while it was happening, but that doesn't mean you aren't culpable, she explains.
I got a message today for some white people, if we have white people.
Listening.
Paying attention.
I wouldn't mind if you would do this with me.
We rub our chests.
We find our heartbeat.
And we say, we did this.
We did this.
White supremacy did this.
I'm talking about Tyree Nichols.
The police didn't do this.
The Memphis Police Department didn't do this.
White supremacy did this.
Well, I say we take her confession seriously.
If she says she did this, then arrest and charge her.
Sentence her to life in a maximum security prison.
After all, she says that she beat a black man to death.
Worse, she apparently did it through some kind of mind control mechanism.
You know, the black cops were the ones doing the kicking and punching, but she says they didn't do this.
She says it explicitly.
They did not do this.
This weird white woman with the G.I.
Joe buzz cut says that she was the one really pulling the strings.
I mean, she says us, we, but I mean, I had nothing to do with it.
So if she's saying that she was, arrest her, interrogate her, find out who her accomplices were.
If she doesn't give them up, then throw her in prison for the rest of her life.
Drop the charges on the cops and throw her behind bars.
I would unironically support that.
She confessed.
She said they didn't do it.
Put her in jail then.
Let's see how deep her white guilt really runs.
But it's not just idiots on TikTok with this message.
The idiot running the largest city in the United States was singing the same tune.
Here's Mayor Eric Adams.
Let me ask you, Chief CJ Davis, in my interview with her, she said that all the officers being black, it takes race off the table.
Do you agree with that?
No, I don't.
I think that I understand what the Chief was saying, and I think she really handled this situation in a very professional way.
She moved swiftly, she ensured that those officers were removed from the department, she took all the necessary steps.
But I think race is still on the table.
When a culture of policing historically has treated those from different groups differently, even when Right, it's the system, it's the culture, racism, white supremacy.
can still exist and we have to zero in on it, being honest about it, and making sure
that we properly train police for the realities of the cities that they are policing in.
Right, it's the system, it's the culture, racism, white supremacy.
The left will blame everyone and everything except the guys who actually did it.
And this is often the case, you may notice, not just in this situation.
Whenever something bad happens, they point the finger in every direction other than the direction where the culprit is actually standing.
These people would be very bad at the game of clue.
I can't imagine.
I mean, even if all the evidence suggests that the murder was carried out by, you know, Colonel Mustard with a candlestick in the dining room, they will still declare that it was ultimately systemic racism and economic inequality and a lack of common sense candlestick control that really killed the victim.
They view everything through this lens, partly because it's, of course, more politically useful.
Why is that?
Well, because there isn't much political utility in actually blaming an individual for his own actions.
Because an individual is small and limited and finite.
There's only so much you can do to harvest an individual's actions for political purposes.
Now, systems, on the other hand, systems, well, those are bountiful fields indeed, politically speaking.
And then beyond the political, the left is also philosophically committed to a view of life that denies the individual free will and agency.
They cannot accept that a person might make his own choices and choose to do an evil thing and actually be culpable for that choice because in the end he has power over himself.
If they accept such a proposition, then all kinds of scary boogeymen like personal responsibility and moral standards and good versus evil come rushing in.
And they can't have that.
But the concern, obviously, that arches over all of this is the racial narrative.
And the narrative demands that every evil that befalls a black person must be explained in terms of white racism.
And they are committed to this idea, too, and cannot abandon it either.
Because if they were to admit, if they were to admit, I mean think about it, if they were to admit that perhaps Nichols was beaten to death by five cops for some other reason, whatever the reason is, because the cops were poorly trained, or they had a personal grudge, or they just happened to be bad and violent people, etc.
If they were to admit that, Then they would be conceding that incidents of police brutality or alleged police brutality can be explained that way, which then raises the question about whether such alleged incidents carried out by white cops might also be explained that way.
It doesn't make sense to say that black cops beat a black man because of racism, but it makes even less sense to say that every black man beaten by a white cop is the victim of racism, while the black-on-black incidents have a variety of other non-racial explanations.
Because if they have non-racial explanations, then again, why couldn't the white-on-black incidents potentially have non-racial explanations as well?
I mean, you have entered into consideration other possibilities that would now have to be thought about, even when it's a white-on-black situation.
Their narrative puts them in a bind.
And the only way out is through.
Either everything can be explained by racism, or they must face the possibility that lots of things are not explained by racism.
The latter is untenable, so the former it is.
is. Now let's get to our headlines. Well you know it's tough to stick to those New Year's resolutions,
but I'll give you one that is easy to accomplish even if you're a lazy SOB like me.
You can complete your will with Epic Will Today.
That's an easy one to accomplish for just $119 in as little as five minutes.
Epic Will can help you create your last will and testament, living will, and even healthcare power of attorney.
Their step-by-step online form makes it incredibly easy to do.
All you need to do is just fill in the blanks.
It's as simple as that.
50% of Americans don't have a will.
Well, choose today to be in that smarter half.
Go to epicwill.com, use promo code Walsh to save 10% on Epic Will's complete will package.
That's epicwill.com, promo code Walsh.
Of course, the irony here is that if you're looking for a systemic explanation for the Tyree Nichols situation, there actually is a very plausible one, but it's just not one that the left wants to pursue or talk about.
And even if you find a systemic, even if there are systemic elements to what happened, which I think there are, we'll talk about in a second, that still does not exonerate the individual from being responsible for their own actions.
But, as far as systems go, the New York Post has this report.
At least two out of the five Memphis police officers charged with murder in the fatal
beatdown of Tyree Nichols joined the force after the department relaxed its hiring requirements.
Tadarius Bean and Demetrius Haley both joined the Memphis Police Department in August 2020,
more than two years after the department dramatically loosened the education qualifications to become
an officer.
Recruits no longer need an associate's degree or 54 college credit hours to join the force, and can get by with five years of work experience.
Loosening the required qualifications, however, means that the department is ultimately getting less desirable job candidates, Mike Alcazar, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired NYPD detective, told The Post.
He said, quote, they're desperate.
They want police officers, Alcazar said.
They're going through it.
They check off some boxes, saying, OK, they're good enough.
Get them on.
The department showed signs of struggle with recruiting new officers, offering $15,000 signing bonuses in 2021 and 2022, according to Fox 13.
As of January 22nd, MPD was down roughly 500 officers, according to the news outlet.
Last year, the department lowered its standards again for new recruits, nixing the timed physical ability test and cutting college education requirements from 54 credit hours to just 24.
The department also revealed that it was even offering waivers for people who have been convicted on felony charges.
So, bringing the standards down, And why this is happening in police departments all across the country.
Why is it happening?
Partly it's because they want to diversify their ranks and this is one of the solutions we were told after George Floyd, even though he died of a fentanyl overdose, and they all blamed it on the police officer.
But after that happened, they said, well, one of the solutions here is we need the police departments to better reflect and look like the communities they're policing.
So they want to diversify, and that's part of the reason they lowered the standards.
The other reason is that they're just finding it difficult to find police officers who want to deal with any of this.
As society becomes more and more anti-cop and as the media is looking to pounce on any police officer, well not any, any police officer who's involved in a physical altercation with a black person.
They're looking to pounce no matter the circumstances.
And you also know, if you're a cop, that you're going to be tried in the court of public opinion.
You're going to be tried in the media before you ever get a fair trial.
And there's a good possibility that you never will get a fair trial, because by the time you get to trial, the jury pool is already tainted by the fact that the media has called you a racist killer, and even your own department has labeled you that way.
The President of the United States is saying it.
So people are looking at all this and, of course, saying, I have no interest in this.
Why would I want to put myself in this position?
And so they're lowering the requirements.
It could also be said that when you cut off funding to police departments, or you redirect, because remember they told us that when they said, well we said defund the police, we didn't mean literally defund them, we just meant redirect the funds somewhere else.
Well, they've been doing that in many cities as well.
You redirect the funds somewhere else, then you don't have the funds to train, to properly equip and train police officers.
You notice something that, when it comes to almost anything else, especially any other government agency, program, government activity, the left will say that the solution is always more funding.
This is especially the case in the education system.
So if there's a problem with kids not getting a good education, if there's a problem with teachers not being good at their jobs, if there's any kind of problem in the education system whatsoever, the solution is always more funding for education.
And the reason why this problem exists is always that, well, they don't have enough funding.
So this is what they say in education, but with policing, somehow the solution is not to fund, not to give more funding, but to take funds away.
Which is very interesting.
You know, there's good evidence that the police chief herself has benefited potentially from the same, um, lowering of standards and, you know, possibly for affirmative action type reasons.
She's a black woman and this was, you know, this is, again, this was part of the solution, we were told, to the alleged problems in police departments.
Is, uh, diversify them, get women in there, get, uh, just anything but white males is what you want.
Well, The Postmillennial has this story.
Chief Sarah Lynn Davis of the Memphis Police Department, which is at the center of attention as protests of the fatal police beating of Tyree Nichols sweep the nation, was previously fired by the Atlanta Police Department after being accused of attempting to cover up the sex crimes of a co-worker's husband.
As the Hastings Tribune reports, Davis was terminated from her position as APD's Internal Affairs Commander for her alleged involvement in a botched sex crimes investigation into the husband of an Atlanta police sergeant.
According to the report, two detectives claimed Davis instructed them to not investigate the suspected predator, who was named Terrell Marion Crane, after police discovered sexually explicit images of him with minor girls.
Crane was later indicted by federal grand jury on charges of producing child pornography to which he pleaded guilty to one count in January 2009.
The case required a federal indictment due to Atlanta police taking no action, according to the publication.
An investigation conducted by the city later found that Davis was at fault for her inaction.
Then-Chief Richard Pennington first demoted the longtime law enforcement official from major to lieutenant before deciding to fire her, though she was ultimately reinstated after challenging the decision with Atlanta's civil service board.
Okay, so she's implicated and in covering up sex crimes.
Of a guy who ends up being convicted of child pornography, and she's demoted and then fired from her position in Atlanta, but then ends up getting hired to run a police department.
How exactly does that happen?
I mean, how do you go from you're fired on suspicions of corruption, and then next thing you know you're running a police department in Memphis?
Was there potentially some lowering of standards that happened there as well?
That seems pretty obvious.
But what we know, which is even more obvious, is that the left, they don't care at all about police reform or corruption.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions in politics, is that the left is, they're anti-cop, they're anti-police, they are very deeply concerned about police reform, police, you know, they want to tamp down on corruption in policing and incompetence in policing.
They don't care about any of that.
They do not care at all about any of that.
What they care about is the racial narrative, the political narrative, And how these things can be exploited.
That's all they care about.
Which is also, by the way, you know, the other thing we didn't talk about are the actual protests and rioting that happened after this video was released on Friday night.
And remember, they built it up.
They talked about how horrible it was.
They got all the protesters gathered in downtown Memphis.
And CNN was covering it, and they were saying, as all the protesters gathered, they're waiting for the release of the, it's like I talked about last week, they're treating it like some sort of Hollywood premiere.
Okay, this was not a Friday news dump, this was a premiere date.
Hey, everyone gather in the city, let's get all fired up and angry, and then we'll drop this video right into the middle of that.
And it would seem like, I mean, if you wanted to encourage rioting, there'd be no better way to do it.
And then they dropped the video, and it was a brutal and horrifying video.
And, yeah, there were protests across the country, and there was some rioting, and there was some looting that happened, which is terrible.
But it really has been not anywhere close to George Floyd 2020 levels, even though everyone agrees.
Like, I haven't heard anyone say otherwise.
Everyone agrees that the Tyree Nichols video is far worse than George Floyd.
Okay.
Now, from my perspective, it's not hard for it to be worse than George Floyd, considering he was in the middle of dying of a drug overdose, but all the same, everyone agrees with that.
And I haven't heard anyone even defend the police officers.
The most anyone has said is, like, they, which I said, they deserve their time in court.
Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
But based on what we're seeing, it's really a horrifying video.
And yet it hasn't reached that level.
The rioting has not reached anywhere close to that level.
And that's because they don't have the racial angle.
There are some other factors, too.
It's a little bit cold.
Rioters, they, you know, rioters and looters, they're They're sensitive to weather conditions.
I think the history has proven that.
But even more so, it's just they don't have the racial angle and it takes the wind out of their sails.
It takes the wind out of the sails of the media, too.
They're trying to find a racial angle in it, but it's not going to stick and they know it.
Which is why I just checked CNN's website, and the Tyree Nichols story is already below the top headline, which has nothing to do with Tyree Nichols, and it's even below on their, if you go on mobile anyway, they've got their top story, and then a review of The Last of Us, the last episode of The Last of Us on HBO, and then there's another story, and there's a story about Ashley Judd, and then below that, you have Tyree Nichols.
Compared to George Floyd, where he was like the top story for, I don't know, three months?
Without the racial angle, it just quickly goes away.
And nowhere is that more evident than, you know, in any case where a white person is killed by police.
So we know if it's white officers killing a black person, we know what they do with that.
If it's black officers killing a black person, they're going to try to find something in it that they can talk about.
But if it's a white person being killed by cops, that just never makes the headlines, ever.
That is never a major headline story, ever.
There are never mass protests on that, ever.
Because they don't care.
All right, just as the show ended on Friday, news broke that would seem to be the epic conclusion of the bizarre Paul Pelosi saga.
Finally, we got the body cam footage from the night when Pelosi was bludgeoned by a hammer-wielding attacker.
That footage doesn't really answer any questions in and of itself.
Actually, it raises more questions than it answers.
All we see is Pelosi answer the door for the cops, standing with the guy, David DePapp is his name, I believe.
They both kind of have their hands on the hammer that DePay brought into the house, and then DePay hits him over the head with it, and that's what we see in the video.
It's a very strange clip, also brutal.
But shortly after that, the 911 call was released.
And this, I think, sort of makes everything pretty clear.
Remember, there were many questions about how this guy ended up in the house.
Did Pelosi know him?
Was this, as some speculated, some kind of, like, male escort hired to come to the house?
That it was a lover's quarrel?
That was the theory being bandied about on Twitter quite a bit.
All of those speculations were rampant on the internet.
Rampant because, as always, we weren't being given the whole story.
They were being oddly secretive about it.
So people speculate.
When you're secretive, you don't tell people the story, they speculate. That's what happens.
Now that we have this, to go along with security camera footage, which was the third thing they
released. Now all these things, they got body camera footage, 911 call, security camera footage.
They kept all of this for months, didn't show anybody, and then all at once they released all
And we also see security camera footage of DuPape actually breaking into the house, smashing the glass in the back, coming into the house.
And then there's the call.
And let's listen to a little bit of the call.
Here it is.
Police, 74.
Oh, I guess I told my mistake.
What is this?
This is San Francisco Police.
Do you need help?
Oh, well, there's a gentleman here just waiting for my wife to come back.
Nancy Pelosi.
He's just waiting for her to come back, but she's not going to be here for a day, so I guess we'll have to wait.
Okay, do you need police, fire, or medical for anything?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Is the Capitol Police around?
No, this is San Francisco.
They're usually here at the house protecting my wife.
No, this is San Francisco Police.
my wife they usually they're usually here at the house protecting my wife.
No, this is San Francisco police.
I know I understand.
Okay well...
Okay, well, uh...
Do you think everything's good?
Uh, he thinks everything's good.
Uh, I've got a problem, but he thinks everything's good.
Okay, call us back if you change your mind.
No, no, no, this gentleman just, uh, came into the house.
Now, we started to see why I think they didn't want to release the call.
It's because it makes the 911 operator look terrible.
person is? No, I don't know who he is. Okay, so he has. Now we started to see why I think they
didn't want to release the call. It's because it makes the 911 operator look terrible. I mean,
it makes the police response, the emergency response look absolutely awful. And I understand
that we have the benefit of hindsight and we have more of the context than she had on the call,
but this is also what you do for a living.
And, um, she just would not pick up the hint.
Like, it could not have been more clear.
First of all, he says from the beginning, my wife is Nancy Pelosi.
So, you know, my wife's Nancy Pelosi.
Someone is here waiting for her.
I'm calling 911 because someone is waiting for my wife named Nancy Pelosi.
Wink, wink.
She wouldn't pick up on that.
Clearly, Paul Pelosi is trying to ask for help without actually saying it because the crazy guy, the meth head who broke into the house, is standing there with a hammer.
And so he probably gave DePape some excuse and said, oh, you want my wife?
Well, sure, I'll call the police and they'll bring her right over.
And then he's standing there and Paul Pelosi is trying to convey this to the 9-1-1 operator without saying it out loud.
I can't get over the part where she actually says... He says, oh yeah, well, the guy who came into my house says there's not a problem.
I think there is a problem, but he says there's not.
The 911 operator says, okay, well, give us a ring back if you need anything.
Okay, well, sounds like everything's totally fine on your end.
Talk to you later.
Could not possibly be more oblivious.
So this...
To me, it's pretty clear what happened.
This is a crazy, homeless, drug-addled freak who came into the house and Paul Pelosi probably woke up.
He was a little bit flustered, didn't know what was going on.
He called police, tried to get them to come over.
He was trying to keep the guy calm, and then everything proceeded from there.
So, pretty clear.
Now, so what's the real story here?
Well, the real story, as I said from the beginning, Is that, and this is not me moving the goalposts.
Now, there were some people on the right who really fully bought into the theory that this was like a lover's spat between Paul Pelosi and a gay male escort.
There were some people on the right that they assumed that and fully bought into it, and that's what they believed.
Now, from my perspective from the beginning, I said, well, that's one theory.
That's a potentially plausible theory, only because, and the fact that they're being secretive and not giving us more information.
Like, why couldn't you have released a 911 call the next day?
There's no reason why you couldn't have.
In many other cases, they do.
So, when they're secretive about something, you start to suspect, well, maybe there's a reason why they're being secretive.
What could those reasons be?
That was only one theory.
What I said from the beginning is that the other potential explanation, Which is that this is San Francisco, and a violent, homeless drug addict broke into the house and was acting crazy.
That is also perfectly plausible, given that it's San Francisco.
I would assume that kind of thing happens in San Francisco all the time.
Maybe not breaking into the house in the middle of the night, but encounters with violent, crazy drug addicts in San Francisco are very common.
And so there's nothing implausible about it.
The real story then is that they tried to make this local crime story in San Francisco into an indictment on Republicans.
They tried to make this David DuPape guy, who was hopped up on drugs and a lunatic, they tried to make him into some sort of conservative right-wing militant.
Like he lived outside, he lived in a bus outside of a hippie commune with the BLM flags and all the rest of it, and they tried to make him into a right-wing militant, which he never was.
Is he a left-wing militant?
No, he's just a crazy guy, is what he is.
That was very clear from the very beginning.
But they try to take what always seemed to me to be, and clearly now is, a local crime story in San Francisco and make it an indictment on Republicans, which is just as absurd as taking Tyree Nichols and making it an indictment of so-called white supremacy.
Just as absurd.
Really, the lesson that we should take from this is that the crime in San Francisco, where Nancy Pelosi lives and the area she represents, the crime is so bad there that it's now spilling out into her own neighborhood.
And she doesn't live in the inner city, which I'm sure is shocking to learn.
So it's now spilling out into the nice parts of San Francisco.
And the Democrat officials who have been in control, who've been in power, and have overseen San Francisco's slide into this crime-ridden, post-apocalyptic hellscape, they are now having to face the Frankenstein monster that they created.
That, to me, is the story.
I gotta leave some time for this because this is my favorite story of the year so far, easily, and potentially of the century, I don't know, but it's a good one.
So the ISU European Figure Skating Championships at Espoo Metro Arena took place last week.
Where is Espoo Metro Arena?
I have no idea.
Somewhere in Europe, we can assume.
And it began with what was billed as a spectacular opening ceremony meant to celebrate equality and diversity.
That's what it was about.
And for a little more on this ceremony, here's the write-up on the ESPOO 2023 website.
It says this.
The ISU European Figure Skating Championship at Espoo Metro Arena will begin on Wednesday, 25th of January with a spectacular opening ceremony drawing its inspiration from the event's theme, which is Just Be You.
The Finnish Figure Skating Association promotes the importance of equality and diversity and develops skating according to its values.
The theme, Just Be You, will be a visible part of the opening ceremony with performers from various backgrounds.
The half-hour opening ceremony was designed by synchronized skating coach Helena Tainhara together with choreographer and coach with a name that I'm not going to pronounce.
Quote, with the diverse group of performers, we want to show that the ice has space for everyone.
The opening ceremony will present skaters at various levels, from non-professionals to top athletes.
On the ice, we will see single skaters, synchronized skaters, and pairs.
Included among the performers are figure skater Mina Maria Antikainen, who defines herself as a gender-neutral woman, and then other performers as well.
Okay, so Mina Maria Antti-Kainen, about this fellow.
And it is a fellow.
First of all, this is a man.
He's a Finnish dude in his 60s and has apparently always dreamed of being an ice princess, is what he has said.
And he now identifies as a woman and as an ice princess.
And so they put him out on the ice for the opening ceremony of this, what I think is
like a major figure skating event.
And we'll show you what that looks like.
Yep.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Well, first of all, before we show you the video, I think we have just a photograph of the guy himself.
Can we put that up on the screen?
We have the photo of the actual ice skater.
Okay, there he is.
So, looks a bit like maybe a A cross-dressing Tommy Lee Jones, perhaps?
You know, he actually looks like Stephen King.
A little bit.
He looks like a creepy, somehow a creepier Stephen King.
If Stephen King was a character in a Stephen King novel, then that's what that guy is.
In other words, a truly beautiful woman.
And if you don't think, I mean, look at this.
Lovely lady right here, if you don't think that this is the most beautiful and gorgeous and graceful female athlete you have ever laid your eyes on, then you are literally Hitler.
That's the truth.
If you do not applaud his, sorry, her ice skating performance as the most impressive athletic display of all time, you are also Hitler.
Which means that there are going to be a lot of hitlers out there after we all watch this performance together
So let's put this up this this was maria
Mina maria's performance on the ice. No, not this one. That's that's next
Yeah, here it is. Go ahead Let's watch this together
Right here he comes Even though I was born there.
And this is actually impressive because this is the first time apparently he has ever been ice skating in his life.
I don't know what's more absurd that he identifies as a woman or identifies as an ice skater.
Oh!
Then he falls.
I don't know what's more absurd, that he identifies as a woman or identifies as an ice skater.
Oh, then he falls.
He falls and can't get back up.
Now, I normally wouldn't laugh at an older man slipping on the ice, but...
Great. The slogan of these European Championships is...
on.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
What a performance.
Remarkable.
And the audience is just watching like, are we allowed to laugh at this?
Are we supposed to laugh at this?
The audience has no idea.
And this is in Europe, so they're very afraid.
They don't know what they're supposed to do.
But they're really looking at each other like, is this supposed to be good?
What are we supposed to do here?
Well, you laugh at it.
That's what you're supposed to do.
That's what you're meant to do.
Honestly, I took my kids, I think I mentioned this, I took my kids ice skating a couple of weeks ago.
And it was my maybe third time ever putting on ice skates.
And the other two times were, I don't know, 20 years ago on like a date or something.
And I was more graceful than that.
And I'm not even exaggerating.
I was significantly better than that.
Compared to that guy, I'm practically I can't name any famous figure skaters, so I can't really finish the analogy, but whatever's the most famous one, I'm practically that person compared to that guy.
But it gets better, because this guy also, this actually is not his first time strapping on the skates, he also competed at an event in 2020 where he gave a performance that was inspired by Japanese culture.
Let's watch this one.
[MUSIC]
I mean this, this in every sense looks like a scene from a Will Ferrell
movie in 2003.
[applause]
But it's not.
This is real.
You know what's strange?
He's actually gotten worse in the last two years.
Because this is a little bit better than what we just saw.
He's regressive.
Oh, look at that.
Okay, he's on one leg.
I don't know.
I don't know if I could do that.
I didn't try.
All right.
Not a joke.
Oh, it does a little twirly thing.
Well.
How is that better?
That was three years ago.
How has it gotten worse since then?
I don't know if it's the hormones they have him on or what.
So this one is good because this is like an appropriation hat trick.
He's appropriating womanhood, appropriating Japanese culture, and appropriating figure skating all at the same time.
But this is how the appropriation math works.
It actually cancels.
So you would think, well, that's three times more offensive than other forms of appropriation.
No, because it actually, it cancels, it all cancels each other out.
Because he's appropriating womanhood at the same time as appropriating Japanese culture, it cancels out, and then it actually becomes not only something that's okay and appropriate, but something that we should celebrate.
And I do celebrate it, and so I'd like to see more.
I want this guy in the Olympics, okay?
I want him winning gold as a female figure skater in the Olympics.
Let's just go all the way and make everything into a total mockery, because that's all it is.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Captain Morgan Kayla says, Matt, nothing would give me greater joy than to hear
you comment on Dylan Mulvaney's new face reveal on Monday's show.
Um, I think that's it.
Every time I hear you mention his name, I cackle because I know what's about to follow is pure gold.
Well, I'm going to disappoint you, Captain Morgan, because I have nothing funny to say about Buffalo Bill Mulvaney, who did reveal his His new face after having face feminization surgery where they shave down the face like they cut into it to make it more quote-unquote feminine.
Which is kind of funny to me to begin with because this guy apparently thought that his face was too masculine before this.
Like that was his problem?
That would be like if I went and got hair transplants for my beard, to make my beard thicker.
As if that, of all my physical problems, as if that's the one that I need to focus on.
And of all of Mulvaney's problems, a masculine face and physique has never been one of them.
Though he is still a man, okay?
Even if a non-masculine one.
He can carve his face into whatever shape he wants to carve it into.
He could become like, uh, he could become like Leatherface and start stitching other people's faces onto his own.
Not to give him any ideas here, but, uh, even then, he would still be himself.
Anyway, like I said, I have nothing to say about Dylan Mulvaney.
No matter what he does, he still looks like Crispin Glover in Back to the Future anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Diabolic Doug says, I love the pickle the ADL, SPLC, etc.
are in by having to choose between allowing Matt to go about life uninterrupted and unimpeded, or choosing to focus their attention and write a unique report on all the ways Matt's beliefs make steam come out of their ears and present him with the honor of most dangerous to their grip on power.
Congratulations.
Well, that's... Any of us who speak up against the left, this is the bind that we put them in, is that If they complain about us and call us names, we just laugh about it.
And the more dangerous they make us seem, the more flattering it is.
But then at the same time, if they ignore us, then that's fine too.
Because then I can, without being annoyed by all the yapping in my ears, then I can just go ahead and do what I'm going to do.
So no matter what, they kind of lose.
And that's the great thing.
Daniel Liza says, I wish Matt would address the issue of false incriminations, whether it happened intentionally or by mistake, when discussing capital punishment.
Well, yeah, this is maybe the most common argument against capital punishment is that what do you do if someone is falsely convicted and then they end up being executed and then obviously that's an irreversible Procedure, let's say, and then if it turns out that they were innocent, then you've killed an innocent man.
The common refrain that we hear is that, well, it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man.
And on that latter point, I'm not actually sure that's the case.
I don't know that that's the ethically correct way of looking at it, that it's better for 100 guilty people to go free than to execute an innocent man.
I mean, maybe I can be persuaded of that, but I think it's the kind of thing you have to argue for.
You can't just state it as if it's self-evidently correct.
I don't think it is self-evident.
I mean, it's an interesting question, but because when you, when you, yes, if you, if you are accidentally, you know, executing an innocent man, someone who was falsely convicted, it's not known by the justice system that he was falsely convicted, he ends up being executed.
That's a horrific tragedy.
There's no question about it.
And then you have lost an innocent life.
However, if you let a hundred guilty men go free, especially guilty men who otherwise would have been executed, then now how many innocent lives will be killed because of that?
More than one, we can assume.
So how do you weigh those things?
It becomes an interesting ethical question, but just, it's a question that I think has to be fleshed out.
I don't think we can simply assume, again, that, well, it's better, let a million guilty men go free into society if it means that we could save one innocent person.
Again, not so sure about that.
But, to your actual question, I think that it is possible these days to be nearly 100% certain that someone is guilty.
Now, you could argue that you can never be certain, but then, in a sense, you can never be certain of anything.
Like, I'm as certain as can be that I'm not going to see an elephant flying through the, you know, I'm not going to look out my window here and see an elephant flying across, over the trees.
Especially because, you know, the trees are fake.
But even if they weren't, allegedly fake.
Like, I'm pretty sure I'll never see a flying elephant, okay?
I'm nearly certain.
But it is, like, technically, a philosopher would say, well, it's logically possible.
You can't say that it's totally impossible that it would happen.
Well, sure.
I'm as certain as can be.
And I think we can be just about that certain when it comes to convicting people of capital crimes these days, because of DNA evidence, because of, you know, all the security footage evidence, and phones, and the way things are tracked, and credit card, and, like, all these things together.
Can lead you to near 100% certainty, and also a lot of times you have confessions, in many cases, you have people admitting that they did it.
So add all that together, I think you could be nearly 100% certain, enough, more than enough, to morally justify the death penalty.
Now, what about in societies where they don't necessarily have the technology to be that certain of somebody's guilt?
Then you could justify the death penalty on different grounds.
Because if they don't have that kind of technology, if this is like a third world country or something, not as developed country, then...
Then there's a whole other reason for the death penalty, which is that you probably don't have the infrastructure and the ability to keep dangerous people in prison indefinitely, you know, for life.
You don't have that ability to do it.
And then the death penalty becomes even more necessary, arguably, for that reason alone.
So, one way or another, I think it leads to the death penalty being justified.
Templar Turd, alright, says, Um, before watching Matt, I would get very defensive when I would be called a homophobe and transphobe, but now whenever I'm called these things, I tell them that I'm very flattered and I'm thankful that they recognize me for who I am.
Thank you, Matt Walsh.
And that's a fine way of responding, just being totally dismissive and, you know, in a snide and sarcastic way, embracing the label that they put on you.
It's fine.
It's fine to respond that way.
As long as—really, any response to the labels is fine, as long as you are not responding by trying to desperately defend yourself against the label.
The moment you do that, you lose.
And anything else, whether you're dismissing, whether you're joking about it, whatever else you do is fine, as long as it is, in the end, basically a dismissive response.
There are many forms of a dismissive response to that, but that is the only way to respond when someone thinks that they can defeat your argument simply by labeling you, oh, well, you're a homophobe, and that's it.
An example of this, I was talking last week about bad art.
You know, we talked about that on, whenever it was, Wednesday or something.
And the proliferation of bad art.
And I mentioned this on Twitter and I was accused of racism.
I was accused of racism for criticizing bad art.
And the reason I was racist is that it wasn't just one person accusing me.
It was hundreds of people saying I was racist because some of the bad art that I cited was made by black artists.
And so this became a racist dog whistle where really I was saying that I don't want black people making art is what they claimed.
And there was one guy in particular who responded to me, and this guy's name is Ahmed Baba.
Says, care to elaborate on what you mean by they?
Because I wrote in the tweet, they make bad art or whatever.
Care to elaborate on what you mean by they?
Let's see how deep you can dig this hole you're in.
And that really rubbed me the wrong way.
Not only because you have the totally baseless racism claim, but also, you're in a hole now.
Let's see you dig your way out of this hole.
Who says I'm in a hole?
I don't care if you think I'm in a hole.
I'm standing up here on level ground.
I don't know what hole you think I'm in, that I have to dig out of.
So I responded to Ahmed and said, Hi Ahmed, you can interpret my statements however you want in your own fevered imagination.
I truly don't care and I don't feel the need to justify myself to you.
Please take your tiresome race baiting routine to someone who gives a s***.
Thanks and have a great evening.
I think that's a fine way of responding as well.
But, no matter what.
The point is, I'm not here to justify myself.
Well, I interpret what you said as racist.
Okay, then you do.
That's how you have chosen to see it.
That's in your own mind.
You have invented this.
It's not my job to talk you down from that.
So go ahead and go off.
You can go live the rest of your life thinking that I'm a racist because I don't like bad sculptures.
You can live the rest of your life thinking that.
Doesn't mean anything to me.
I don't care.
Well, if you're a parent, then you know that the radical left has infiltrated every aspect of your kids' lives, from academia to medicine to children's programming.
They are pushing a woke agenda at every turn and doing everything they can to capture their hearts and minds.
If you're a parent, then this is deeply concerning, and you may feel powerless to stop the onslaught.
But the good news is that many are finding a way to fight back.
That's why I'm excited to tell you about a brand new book published by DW Books, written by Bethany Mandel.
And Carol Markowicz, it's called Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation.
And in Stolen Youth, an excellent book, they share testimonials from parents who are witnessing just how far and out of control the agenda has become in corrupting our morals.
And it's also one that was exacerbated during the pandemic.
This is an absolute must-read for parents who want to understand how we got here.
What we're up against and also, most importantly, how to go on the offensive, how to fight back, how to save our kids.
Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence in an Indoctrinated Generation comes out on March 7th.
But if you click on the Amazon link in the description, you can pre-order your copy today.
You don't want to miss it.
Make sure you do that.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Growing up in the 90s, we saw many one-hit wonders come and go.
They'd pop onto the music scene with a piece of melodic and lyrical brilliance like Macarena or Tubthumping or Mambo No.
5, and their songs would be inescapable for five and a half months, piping through every speaker, ubiquitous, floating on the breeze, almost becoming a part of the atmosphere.
And then just as suddenly, both the song and the musical act that produced it would disappear, and we would never hear from Lubega, or Chumbawamba, or whoever made the Macarena, ever again.
Maybe they'd turn up again briefly years later in a VH1 Where Are They Now segment, but usually they simply faded from view entirely, leaving us to wonder whether they ever actually existed.
That's not how things work anymore.
These days, nobody ever goes away.
Nobody ever fades from view.
We are not permitted to forget about anyone, no matter how much we may want to.
Because we're all connected, we're caught on the same web, and so everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, but the 15 minutes never ends.
This is true on a personal level, and it's also true in pop culture, where most pop artists are at most capable of producing one moderately listenable song, their one real hit, but then they linger on indefinitely, clamoring for attention, usually in ways that have nothing to do with the music.
And in recent years especially, a marginal pop star who already released their one arguably decent or at least maybe not completely terrible song will cling desperately to relevance by doing two things.
One, becoming increasingly vulgar and explicitly sexual.
And two, coming out of the closet.
And often they'll come out of multiple closets.
They'll come out of the closet multiple times, finding one closet after another to emerge from.
We may call this the Demi Lovato strategy, though she neither invented it, nor is she the only pop star to utilize it.
Some came before her, and many have came after her, and this is the case, certainly, for the singer named Sam Smith.
You may remember Sam Smith as the guy who made that one song ten years ago, Stay With Me, is what it was called, and it enjoyed its five and a half months of cultural ubiquity.
And it was around this same time that Smith came out of his first closet, announcing to the world that he was gay.
And that revelation didn't do much to generate any extra interest or fame for Sam Smith, as we all kind of assume at this point that every pop star is gay, so he said, hey, I'm gay, and we all said, uh, yeah, okay.
We figured.
Perhaps disappointed that he didn't get more publicity mileage out of his sexual preferences, Smith began revealing deeper and deeper levels to his gayness, like the gay equivalent of a Russian doll.
And just like an actual Russian doll, the smaller thing disguised inside the larger thing is just a smaller version of the larger thing, so it just kind of repeats itself in this infinite regress.
A few years later, Smith came out as genderqueer, explaining that he, quote, He was, of course, never asked to explain what the hell that's supposed to mean or how he knows what a woman feels like or how he delineates between man feelings and woman feelings.
It's good for his sake that he wasn't asked these questions because he wouldn't have been able to answer them because the term genderqueer is completely meaningless.
But genderqueer Sam Smith was about as interesting to the public as gay Sam Smith, so he went back to the drawing board, and two years after that, he came out of his third closet.
He announced that he's actually not just gay, not just genderqueer, but in fact non-binary, and will now use they-them pronouns.
How does being non-binary differ in any meaningful sense from being genderqueer, and what do any of these terms mean, and in what way is he not simply just a gay guy with feminine mannerisms like a million other gay guys?
Well, again, he was never asked those questions and couldn't have answered them if he had been.
Then another several years passed, and Sam Smith put out more music than nobody cared about, and he realized that simply being a gay, genderqueer, non-binary they-them wasn't going to cut it.
And that's when he decided that his only path back to something approaching cultural relevance was to become basically the white male Lizzo.
So Smith packed on 150 pounds, dressed up in an outfit that reveals far more of his body than any human on earth ever wanted to see, and he put out a new X-rated album and music video.
And he explained this, this new artistic direction, in a recent interview where he explains that he knows that it's a risky move to do this, but he's bold enough to try it.
Listen.
The music industry is just not used to queer artists.
If there was a big risk you took with this album, what would you say it was?
For yourself.
I'd say the biggest risk on this album was the element of sex.
Wow.
The music industry isn't ready for queer artists, he says.
Which is a bit like claiming that Zumba isn't ready for middle-aged white women.
He also says that the biggest risk he's taking is being sexual.
I mean, that's a pretty big risk, we have to admit.
I mean, it takes a lot of guts to do the same thing that literally every other person in your profession is doing, and has already done, and has been doing for decades.
Following the easiest and safest trend.
Now, there's a risk.
I mean, that's boldness, if I ever saw it.
Next, he's going to tell me that he went out on a limb and picked the Chiefs to go to the Super Bowl this year.
I mean, this guy.
I mean, sorry, this them.
He knows how to take risks.
Big risks.
Granted, he might be the first pop star to go this direction while looking like he plays right tackle on the Detroit Lions practice squad.
Though on second thought, I guess Lizzo has him beat there as well.
So even on that point, he's not the first.
So Smith's latest musical effort may not be risky, may not be bold, may not be revolutionary, but it is at least, we will admit, totally repulsive and grotesque.
And this is normally the part where I would play a clip of his disgusting music video that has gone viral entirely for being disgusting, but I'm actually not going to do that in this case.
I'm not going to force you to start your Monday that way.
Suffice it to say that Smith's new music video for his song, which is called I'm Not Here to Make Friends, shows the morbidly obese singer in women's underwear
dancing awkwardly with both men and women wearing something similar to assless chaps,
who then start humping the floor with their bare butts sticking up, at which point streams of pee start spraying
all over them, and it gets worse from there, but I'm realizing that
describing it may even be more objectionable than just watching it, so you get the gist anyway.
Now, it's probably no use pointing out how morally debased all of this is.
Just as it's no use observing how our society day by day comes to not only resemble, but in every sense rival, Sodom
and Gomorrah.
That all goes without saying at this point, and it's also exactly what these attention-starved, ugly, degenerate morons want us to say.
It is true that Sam Smith is a filthy, hideous pervert.
It's also true that he wants us to say that about him.
After all, as we've learned from all of the Sam Smiths that came before this Sam Smith, part of being a pervert is getting off on other people noticing that you're a pervert.
Like, the thrill he gets from hearing people describe him that way is part of why he's a pervert and what makes him a pervert to begin with.
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't point it out, but rather that after we've delivered the moral condemnation this kind of garbage calls for and deserves, we should also say the thing that is just as true, and also the one thing that Sam Smith does not want us to say.
The thing that those of his ilk fear the most, because they know it is true, is that this routine, along with being debased and disgusting and morally preyed, is also boring.
It is dirty and stupid and gross and evil and totally, utterly tiresome.
Boring.
Played out.
We've seen it a million times already.
They cannot shock us anymore.
As a culture, we are sadly far too jaded to be scandalized by anything.
You cannot scandalize us.
You can't do it.
Our eyes and minds have grown essentially calloused.
We've been swimming in this muck and filth for so long that another bucket may be demoralizing and sad, but it can never shock us.
It can never surprise us.
To be intentionally ugly in a world of ugliness only means that you blend in.
You become part of the background.
Now, you may be noticed for a brief moment, but then you fade into the surroundings and you become merely part of the fecal-flect landscape.
A decadent society is very generous to perverts in many ways, but the one thing that the perverts are forced to give up, the one price that they must pay, is the element of surprise.
You can't surprise us anymore.
And most of all, they lose their status as revolutionaries.
They're not challenging the system, but rather acting as guardians and reinforcers of it.
Now, if Sam Smith really wanted to shock us, therefore, he would have created something good.
Something meaningful.
Something beautiful and true.
Now, that would be something we're not used to.
Okay, you want to give the music industry something it's not used to?
How about beauty and truth?
But that requires talent.
And moral clarity.
And an IQ somewhere above the freezing point.
Which puts it out of Sam Smith's reach.
And that is why Sam Smith is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, if you're not a member yet, you can become a member and use code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
