Ep. 1137 - Race Hustlers Scrape The Bottom Of The Barrel In Desperate Pursuit Of Victimhood
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the race hustlers scrape the very bottom of the barrel in their desperate search for racism. This time they claim that memes are "digital blackface." Also, AOC takes to TikTok to valiantly defend TikTok from those who want to ban it. A Minnesota politician who pushes gender transition drugs on children reveals that he has no idea if the drugs are safe or not. Donald Trump spends time during his rally attacking DeSantis. And in our Daily Cancellation, George Washington University is dropping its "colonials" nickname because it brings to mind the evil history of colonization. But is the history of colonization actually evil? No, not at all.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://getrefunds.com/.
Epic Will - Save 10% off your complete will package: https://www.epicwill.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, the race hustlers scrape the very bottom of the barrel in their desperate search for racism.
This time, they claim that memes are digital blackface, quote-unquote.
Also, AOC takes to TikTok to valiantly defend TikTok from those who want to ban it.
A Minnesota politician who pushes gender transition drugs on children reveals that he has no idea if the drugs are safe or not and doesn't care.
Donald Trump spends time during his rally attacking DeSantis, and in our daily cancellation, George Washington University is dropping its Colonials nickname because it brings to mind the evil history of colonization.
But is the history of colonization actually evil?
Well, no, not at all.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
You know, death is not something anyone likes to think about, but it's important to plan for the future and ensure that your loved ones are taken care of after you pass away.
Whether you're a first-time parent early in your career or an empty nester, it is never too early or too late.
To write your will.
And with Epic Will, you can get it done in as little as five minutes for just $119.
Have you ever considered who will take care of your kids when you pass away?
How about who will speak on your behalf when you find yourself in a situation where you're unable to make health-related decisions for yourself?
Who do you trust to handle your financial obligations if you can't do it?
These are some of the hardest questions we face in life, and Epic Will is here to help you through every step of the process.
Epic Will's team of estate planning attorneys has done all the legal legwork so that you don't have to.
All you have to do is fill out their step-by-step form, and they'll help you create your last will and testament, living will, health care, and a financial power of attorney.
Don't put it off any longer.
Two-thirds of Americans do not have a will.
Choose to be in the smarter third of Americans who do.
Go to epicwill.com slash Walsh to save 10% on Epic Will's complete will package.
That's epicwill.com slash Walsh.
Well, CNN is a dying, pathetic husk of a fake news organization, but at least it still serves a purpose, and that purpose is making the rest of us feel smart by comparison.
And it fulfilled that vocation again this weekend with an op-ed on its website from one of its senior writers, quote-unquote, named John Blake.
The headline, What is digital blackface, and why is it wrong when white people use it?
Yes, digital blackface.
And no, he's not referencing Justin Trudeau's Twitter account.
The digital blackface scourge, according to Blake, is much more widespread than that.
He explains, quote, Maybe you shared that viral video of Kimberly's sweet brown Wilkins telling a reporter after narrowly escaping an apartment fire, ain't nobody got time for that.
Perhaps you posted the meme of supermodel Tyra Banks exploding in anger on America's Next Top Model.
I was rooting for you, we were all rooting for you, is what the meme says.
Or maybe you've simply posted popular gifs such as, and it is gif, not jif, such as the one of NBA great Michael Jordan crying, or of drag queen RuPaul declaring girl.
If you're black and you've shared such images online, you get a pass.
But if you're white, you may have inadvertently perpetuated one of the most insidious forms of contemporary racism.
You may be wearing digital blackface.
Now, before we go any further, I want you to think about what Blake has just unwittingly conceded here.
He has essentially admitted that anti-black racism is a non-issue in modern America.
He admitted all of that by claiming that white people posting GIFs of Tyra Banks are engaging in one of the most insidious forms of contemporary racism.
Now, whatever else we can say about these GIFs, If they constitute one of the most insidious, most sinister, most evil kinds of anti-black racism in modern America, then that would mean that anti-black racism is basically over.
I mean, certainly if we lived in a culture where black people suffered actual widespread systemic racism, then memes of Michael Jordan would not make the top ten list.
There were no GIFs in 1850 during the slavery era, but if there were, nobody would have said that they constitute one of the most insidious forms of racism at that time.
If they do now, then that should tell us something.
Of course, digital blackface is not a thing and GIFs are not racist, but my point is that we could actually concede everything that this ridiculous hack is claiming.
We could grant him the entire premise.
And it would only undermine his underlying premise, which is that anti-black racism is a serious systemic problem in modern America.
In other words, if he's wrong about this subject, he's full of crap.
But if he's right about this subject, he's still full of crap.
Either way, this is one crap-filled man.
Let's continue.
Digital blackface is a practice where white people co-opt online expressions of black imagery, slang, catchphrases, or culture to convey comic relief or express emotions.
These expressions, what one commentator calls racialized reactions, are mainstays in Twitter feeds, TikTok videos, and Instagram reels and are among the most popular internet memes.
Digital blackface involves white people play-acting at being black, Says Lauren Michelle Jackson, an author and cultural critic, in an essay for Teen Vogue.
Jackson says the internet thrives on white people laughing at exaggerated displays of blackness, reflecting a tendency among some to see black people as walking hyperbole.
Another quick aside here.
We're all busy people.
We have a lot going on.
Well, John Blake doesn't.
He has time to write a 5,000-word dissertation about memes that hurt his feelings.
But some of us are busy, which means we look for shortcuts.
We look for ways to assess and understand things very quickly.
And here's one.
If you're ever reading anything that mentions an essay in teen vogue, and it's not in the
context of making fun of the essay, but rather it's citing the essay as an intellectual and
moral authority, then you can immediately disregard everything else the author has to
say on that subject or any other subject.
And if you are ever writing something and you find yourself favorably citing an essay
in teen vogue, then you can know that you have at some point in the past suffered some
kind of head trauma that maybe you don't remember and you need to seek medical attention right
away.
More from CNN's John Blake.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Quote, if you're still not sure how to define digital blackface, Jackson offers a guide.
She says, it includes displays of emotions stereotyped as excessive.
So happy, so sassy, so ghetto, so loud.
Our dial is on 10 all the time.
Rarely are black characters afforded subtle traits or feelings.
Many white people choose images of black people when it comes to expressing exaggerated emotion on social media, a burden that black people didn't ask for, she says.
We are your sass, your nonchalance, your fury, your delight, your annoyance, your happy dance, your diva, your shade, your yass moments.
Jackson writes, the weight of reaction giffing, period, rests on our shoulders.
Well, if you were hoping that there would be some kind of rock bottom to our cultural descent into stupidity, now you know better.
Because if there was a rock bottom, then the paragraph I just read would have to be it.
A paragraph which ends with the sentence, the weight of reaction giffing rests on our shoulders.
This woman is pretending to be somehow emotionally burdened by gifts of black people.
According to her, she walks around every day carrying the cross of gifts.
She is a Christ figure, suffering and sacrificing herself so that the rest of us can have means.
This is how she presents herself.
And yet, this is not our intellectual rock bottom.
We are still falling.
Still plunging eternally into the idiot abyss.
Now you've probably heard enough of this article, you've heard enough after the title really, but here's a bit more.
Quote, Some may say posting a video of Sweet Brown saying, Oh Lord Jesus it's a fire is just for laughs.
Why overthink it?
Why give people yet another excuse for labeling white people racist for the most innocuous behaviors?
But critics say that digital blackface is wrong because it's a modern-day repackaging of minstrel shows, a racist form of entertainment popular in the 19th century.
That's when white actors, faces darkened with burnt cork, entertained audiences by playing black characters as bumbling, happy-go-lucky simpletons.
That practice continued in the 20th century on hit radio shows such as Amos and Andy.
Put simply, digital blackface is 21st century minstrelsy.
So without a hint of irony, the article repeatedly uses a RuPaul meme as an example of this 21st century minstrelsy, but not because drag is the modern-day minstrel show, which of course it is.
Okay, these are the minstrel performers of modern America.
So we do have minstrel performers in this country, but they're wearing woman face rather than black face.
Just as degrading, just as dehumanizing, just as offensive, just as insulting.
That's not what the author means.
To him, RuPaul is an example of modern-day minstrel only when a white person on Twitter uses his image as a reaction gif.
One last time back to the article says historical blackface has never truly ended and Americans have
yet to actively confront their racist past to this day.
Aaron Wong writes in an academic paper on the topic. In fact, minstrel blackface has emerged into even
more subtle forms of racism that are now glorified all over the internet. Wong says that digital
blackface is wrong because it culturally appropriates the language and expressions of
black people for entertainment while dismissing the severity of everyday instances of
racism black people encounter such as police brutality, job discrimination, and
educational inequity.
An academic paper on the topic, we're told.
This is the kind of thing they write academic papers about.
The fact that academic papers are covering the same subjects as essays in Teen Vogue should tell you everything you need to know about academia.
And of course, they're all just following TikTok's lead.
Indeed, TikTok has been on the front lines fighting against digital blackface for years now.
Here's one example.
Hi, Benji here, and I'm going to explain what digital blackface is.
Digital blackface is when non-black people use images or emojis of black people to express emotion online, often extreme ones like anger or disbelief.
Sometimes images are edited to indicate blackness for this purpose.
The intent may be innocent, but digital blackface, like the original use of blackface, exploits blackness through media for entertainment.
The overuse of these images also reinforces negative stereotypes that drive racial discrimination.
We can use images of people that are a different race.
It's okay to enjoy popular culture.
We should just be conscious of the impact the media that we share online may have on communities with less privilege.
For example, if you find you always use images of black women to express sass, consider the negative stereotypes you're reinforcing and how this might reflect your own unconscious biases, and try a different image next time.
Hope that helps, bye!
You know, I would really prefer if they just yelled at us, like they obviously want to, because this cheerful smiling routine is just intolerable.
I mean, there's something even more repugnant about this kind of tone.
Hey guys, hope you're having a great day.
Hey, by the way, you're racist if you do this totally normal and innocuous thing.
Do as I say, you white devils.
Okay, bye bigots, love you.
That's even worse.
And of course, the condescension is part and parcel here.
Patronizing, smugly, disdainful.
None of that is incidental.
Leftism is, after all, an ideology of trifling tyrants constantly looking for new ways to manipulate us.
The pettiness is the point.
I mean, these are people who invented the word problematize, which literally means taking something that is not a problem and turning it into a problem.
They aren't trying to solve problems, they're trying to create them.
And they aren't even hiding it, they'll admit it.
That's why this kind of garbage, this push to make every benign thing into a racist assault on black identity or into some other form of bigotry, even now including memes, may seem idiotic and laughable, and it is.
I mean, it is idiotic and we should laugh at it, absolutely.
But underneath the stupidity, bubbling just under the surface, is the very real and very sinister agenda to control every last aspect of our lives and of our expression and of our words and our thoughts.
You know, they don't want you to do, say, or think anything without referring to them first to see if it's allowed.
And that's why the pettier, the better.
The more seemingly innocuous, the better.
Because they want you to start thinking that, oh man, the thing I thought didn't matter at all is I can't even do this without being a racist.
That's the agenda.
But whether we engage with this on the surface level or we consider what lies underneath it, Our response should be the same.
And the response, again, should be utter contempt, disdain, dismissiveness, and mockery.
That should be our response to them.
That is, by far and away, the only acceptable answer at this point.
And a necessary answer.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Biden's plans to help struggling business owners in the wake of COVID
lockdowns were to prioritize Black, Latino, Native American, and
women-owned businesses.
It goes without saying that if the roles were reversed, if Biden had said his plans were to prioritize white male-owned businesses, which is unthinkable, There would be outrage, obviously.
If you own a business, you can't rely on the government to bail you out.
You need to take matters into your own hands, and innovation refunds can help you do just that.
If your business has five or more employees and managed to survive COVID, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee through the ERC.
Many businesses believe that they won't qualify based on incomplete or outdated information, so don't let this opportunity pass you by because this payroll tax refund is only available for a limited time.
Go to GetRefunds.com.
Innovation Refunds has already helped clients claim over $3 billion in payroll tax refunds through the ERC, and they may be able to help your business, too.
This is not a loan.
There's no payback.
It's a refund of your taxes.
There's no upfront charge either.
They don't get paid until your business gets its refund.
So don't let this opportunity pass you by.
There's no excuse.
See if your business qualifies for ERC assistance in just eight minutes by going to getrefunds.com.
Click on the qualify me and answer a few questions.
Don't miss out.
Go to getrefunds.com, getrefunds.com.
All right, so I think we're gonna begin with this.
Late last week, Minnesota finally passed a bill that makes Minnesota into a refuge state for child castration and mutilation.
We've been following the progress of this bill, and as expected, it passed.
So parents can now take their children across state lines to Minnesota to have them abused and butchered in the name of a quote-unquote gender transition.
If you want to know why this bill is insane, then, well, you only need to have a conscience and a brain to figure that out.
Also, this clip will help.
Here's Representative Finke, who is a male who identifies as a woman, being questioned about the side effects.
This is one of the main proponents of this bill and of this move to make Minnesota into a quote-unquote trans refuge state.
Well, his question about these drugs and about the side effects, because this is like one of the main arguments that people who are against child transition will make, is that these drugs are harmful and that they do a lot of harm to kids.
And so here he is being questioned about that.
Like, what do you have to say about that?
And listen to his answers, or his non-answers rather.
Representative Finke, do GNRH hormones cause bone loss?
Representative Finke.
Thank you Madam Speaker.
That is not a yes or no question.
You'll have to talk to a doctor about a specific treatment plan to have an answer to that question.
According to the NIH.gov, human clinical trials revealed significant bone loss at the spine, hip and femur in patients treated with the GnRH antagonist.
Thus, osteoporosis and the resilient fragility fractures pose a significant impact on health and quality of life of the GnRH antagonist.
Representative Finke, are any of the drugs that are prescribed to children also given, and by drugs I mean hormone therapies or quote-unquote puberty blockers, are any of them prescribed to children, are they also given to violent sex offenders with the purpose of chemically castrating the violent sex offender?
Representative Finke, Madam Speaker, I have no idea.
Representative Franson.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The answer is yes.
Does luprin cause sterility in men?
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I don't know.
Representative Franson.
Madam Speaker, thank you.
The answer, members, is yes.
I mean, to think that there are people who could watch that video and then come away
with the conclusion that the dude with the purple hair is in the right on this one.
Like, I'm gonna be on his side.
Okay, he's promoting and pushing these drugs on children, and then he's asked, well, does it have horrific long-term side effects?
Well, I don't know.
Who knows?
Who knows?
Now, we will say that if this exact conversation was happening, say, two years ago, then he would have answered all those questions and he would have said, no.
Does it cause this?
Does it cause that?
He would have said, no, no, it's 100% safe.
And there's still plenty of trans activists who will claim that.
But the reason he doesn't say that is because he is aware that more and more people are aware of this issue now.
And if he just straight up lies, people will know that he's lying.
So, you know, so instead of just outright lying and telling lies everyone will know
or lies is that as well, I don't know who knows who could not yet.
It's not a yes or no answer.
By the way, if you ever are at the doctor and and you're, you know, asking about they're
trying to get you to take some kind of drug and you say, oh, well, does it have this terrible
long term side effect like bone loss?
OK, which is a debilitated, debilitating and severe.
I shouldn't have to tell anyone that debilitating and severe long term side effect is bone loss.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
If you ask your doctor that, does it cause this?
Well, not a yes or no answer.
It kind of is.
Like, can it cause that or not?
It either can or it can't.
So, a not a yes or no answer in this context is a yes answer.
Now, obviously he's lying.
Now, he knows.
He's saying, oh, we don't know the answer to that question.
We know the answers to those questions are all yes.
Causes bone loss.
This is a... Lupron's drug used to chemically castrate sex offenders.
That is a fact.
That is an absolute fact.
Causes sterility.
Yes, another fact.
Okay, it's part of the point of the way these drugs are used.
And so that's all fact.
So he's lying about that.
But in this case, the way he's presenting it is...
Not only, I don't know, but I don't care.
Just total dismissiveness.
So we went from, on the trans activist side, we went from, oh, all these claims you're making about the drugs are false and wrong and untrue, and now we've entered the phase of, well, no one can know for sure, but who could really know?
There's no way to know.
And then pretty soon, we're gonna get to the part where they start saying, well, yeah, it does cause that, and it's good.
We're gonna get there next.
We are very soon going to get to the point where they will answer and say, well, yeah, we're sterilizing kids.
Good.
It's a good thing we are.
Of course, that's already what they think.
Okay, it's already what they think.
To them, it is a good thing.
They are well aware that they are sterilizing children with these drugs.
They're chemically castrating children.
And they, but they, that's not a, that's not a bug.
It's a feature for them.
We are rapidly getting to the point where they will admit that out loud, because this is always the way that things progress.
First, it's the denial, not happening.
Then it's the, well, no one can know, we have to relive.
And then, soon, it's going to be, well, hell yeah, we're going to sterilize kids.
And it's a good thing we are.
It's not happening.
OK, it is happening, but it's good.
With everything on the left, it always works that way.
It's not happening.
OK, fine, it is happening, and it's good.
Now let's stay on this topic for a moment.
Grinnell College put out a poll result showing that a majority of Americans are not in favor of bills banning gender transitions for minors.
So according to this poll, a majority of Americans will be on the purple-haired dude's side.
Not in favor, allegedly, of the bills that ban this stuff.
So a majority think that it's okay to medically transition a child, according to this.
And trans activists have, of course, swarmed on this poll, attached themselves to it like flies on feces.
Here's just one example, Ari Drennan of Media Matters.
A new poll shows that the majority of U.S.
adults oppose legislative bans on gender-affirming care for trans youth.
And you can see the numbers there.
Supposedly, proposed ban on children receiving gender-affirming medical care with parental consent.
And what we're told is that 53% overall oppose the ban.
Obviously among Democrats it's more, 78%, but still you got almost 30% of Republicans who oppose the ban and over 50% of Independents who oppose it.
What does this poll prove?
The poll proves that language is very important.
So you look at the wording.
Gender-affirming care.
This is what people were asked.
Whether they support gender-affirming care.
And the way they're asked the question begs the question.
Because the whole point of the people who object to this stuff is that it is not, quote-unquote, gender-affirming care, but rather butchery.
It is the rejection of the self, of the true self, of a person's true sex.
Okay, so you're not affirming anything.
You're not affirming any reality in a way, you're affirming confusion.
They have taken aside just in the way that they word the question, and they get a different answer, because most people don't know what these terms really mean, even now.
I think more people understand now than did two or three years ago, but even now, most people don't know what these terms mean.
They don't know what it's referring to.
They just hear affirming, and they think, oh, well, it must be good.
Most people don't even know that gender-affirming care is the new term for, you know, where they used to use the term sex change.
Or gender transition.
Which is why, when you ask people if they support sex changes for minors, as Rasmussen did a month ago, the numbers flip.
In that poll, when Americans were asked if they support legislation making it illegal to perform sex change surgery on minors, 58% said that they did support the ban.
So you've got the numbers almost exactly flipping, depending on how you word it.
But even sex change is euphemistic.
I mean, even the term sex change.
Because it used to be they said sex change, and then they changed it to gender transition, then they changed it to gender affirmation.
But it was always the pro-trans side that was coming up with all these terms, and then coming up with new terms, because they decided, you know, this is another thing that always happens on the left, they use a term to, like as a euphemism, to denote a certain thing.
And then people start to realize what the term actually means and what it really stands for, and then they have to change the term again.
They have to stay sort of one step ahead of the public consciousness on these issues.
So even sex change is euphemistic.
It's euphemistic in favor of the trans side.
Because you can't really change your sex.
It's not possible to do.
The really revealing poll, and I don't know if anyone's done this, would be one that drops all euphemisms And just ask people directly, like, explain what the thing is.
Don't use any label or term for it.
Just explain what it is and say, do you support that?
Do you think it's okay?
Do you support the chemical castration and sterilization of children?
Do you think children should be given drugs that chemically castrate and sterilize them?
Period.
Do you think that children should be given those drugs?
Because that's what these drugs do.
That's what it is.
Plain and simple.
There's no editorializing there.
It's just what it is.
Or you could, as I said, you could go a longer explanation.
You know?
Use more than one sentence.
Say, here's Lupron.
Here's what it does.
Do you think kids should be given this?
You ask that question, and yet again, those numbers are going to, you know, rather than 58% being in support of bans, it's going to be, you know, 75% or more.
All right.
And do you know why it would be 75% or more?
Because also, many of the people, you know, even people who would say, Oh, I support gender transitions.
It dropped the affirmation part of it, that euphemism.
Even many of the people would say, I support gender transitions for minors.
Yes, I support that.
Many of them also don't know what that entails.
They don't really know what that means, what it involves, what these drugs do.
They don't know that.
If you tell them, you're going to get a different answer.
All right, Trump held a rally in Waco on Saturday.
Of course, he spent a while during the rally attacking DeSantis.
I mean, he attacks DeSantis far more than he attacks Democrats these days.
But I'm not sure that the attacks play well, and I thought this was a revealing part of the rally.
Check this out.
Long before this guy became governor, Florida was tremendously successful under Rick Scott.
He was — look, whether you like him or not, Charlie Crist, it was very successful.
He was a Republican at the time.
But Florida has been successful for decades.
In fact, probably as or more successful than it is now.
But when a man — you know, you get him elected, and there's no quid pro quo.
Get rid of that word.
Remember those words?
Quid pro quo.
With the perfect call I made with the Ukrainian president.
But when you're getting a guy so he gets the nomination because of you, he wins the election because of you, two years later, the fake news is up there saying, will you run against the president?
Will you run?
And he says, I have no comment.
I say, that's not supposed to happen.
So, a few things.
Trump's entire argument against DeSantis really is that it hurts his feelings that he endorsed DeSantis, not DeSantis has the gall to possibly run against him.
I think it's clear that DeSantis is going to run, plus you have to do that Piers Morgan interview.
So, it hurts his feelings and it's offensive to him that, you know, his argument is that DeSantis owes him loyalty.
I mean, that's his whole argument.
That's his argument against it.
But, you know, that might be how he feels about it.
But in terms of the American people, does that mean that we should see DeSantis as, like, he wouldn't make a good president because of that?
Because he had insufficient loyalty to Donald Trump?
I mean, should the American people give a damn about that?
And this is, again, I know if you're a Trump supporter, Trump fan, you don't like this part of it, but Trump rose to prominence, 2015, 2016, talking about issues that matter to Americans.
Illegal immigration was obviously the big one.
Not the only one.
But that's what he was talking about.
These days, he spends most of his time talking about things that matter to him.
Complaints that he has personally.
And trying to make some sort of connection as to why this should matter to everyone else.
And he doesn't even really explain that.
Because he can't, you know...
When it comes to DeSantis, he really has no choice.
DeSantis has been a good governor.
He just has been.
I'm sorry.
He has been good.
And he has also enacted conservative policies in a meaningful way and in a way that no other Republican in elected office has in years.
That's just a fact.
And to most Americans, that's what matters, especially Republican primary voters.
That's what we care about.
Can you get the policies?
Can you put them in place?
Can we trust you to govern according to the principles that you claim to hold?
Can we trust you to govern according to them?
That's the question we have for any presidential candidate, right?
The fact that some other politician is offended because he feels like you owe them loyalty and you didn't, who cares?
I don't care about that.
No real American voter cares about that.
But this is what he spends his time on.
I think it's a huge mistake.
And if he wins the primary, Trump, and he goes to the general, it's especially gonna be a mistake there.
Maybe you get away with this in the primary, I don't know.
Maybe you get away with a campaign that's 90% focused on your own complaints about things that are happening to you.
In a general election, no way.
That's not gonna fly.
It just won't.
And when it comes to DeSantis, The attacks on DeSantis, they play well on Twitter, okay?
There's a group of people on Twitter who go for this stuff.
He's not even getting cheers at a rally, at a Trump rally.
You rarely hear a Trump rally as quiet and awkward as that.
Nor should you.
It's a rally for, you know, your rally, these are your people.
It's supposed to be raucous and unless it's a, you know, unless it's a Biden rally.
That sounded like a Biden rally, which is not good.
But there is a, I think this is just a catastrophic strategy in general.
Spent so much time going after the most popular elected Republican in the country, and a guy who's popular in DeSantis, not just because of stuff he's saying, but because of the stuff he did.
We're not idiots, okay?
The Republicans who support DeSantis, even if you like Trump more, if you still support DeSantis.
We're not morons.
We like him because we see what he's done and we appreciate that.
This is what we want.
I don't think it's playing.
I don't think it's playing outside of Twitter.
I don't think it plays anywhere else.
And I think it's a mistake.
Not unsalvageable.
People have short memories, especially in a political campaign.
Trump could pivot from this and just say, alright, let's talk about things Americans actually care about and not complain about the Santas the whole time.
Let's even acknowledge that DeSantis is doing, you know, doing a really good job.
Rather than praising Charlie Criss, this is not the first time either that he's praised Charlie Criss, by the way.
Charlie Criss was better than DeSantis.
That is not, even Trump can't get away with a line like that in a Republican primary.
People are not going to go for that.
It's possible to pivot, to get away from this, to start focusing on issues people actually care about.
It's possible.
Certainly possible.
You know, if he were to pivot now, by the time the primaries really start in earnest, by the time the voting actually starts, you know, right now is ancient history.
Nobody even remembers it.
But I don't have a lot of confidence that that pivot will happen.
All right.
This is from Business Insider.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said TikTok should not be banned in her first video on the app on Saturday.
The New York Democrat started her video by saying, this is not only my first TikTok, but it's a TikTok about TikTok.
Do I believe TikTok should be banned?
No.
So she started a TikTok in order to go on TikTok and defend TikTok from all the people who want to ban it in both parties, by the way.
Let's watch a little bit of that video.
So why would we be proposing a ban regarding such a significant issue without being clued in on this at all?
It just doesn't feel right to me.
And additionally, this case needs to be made to the public.
We are a government by the people and for the people.
And if we want to make a decision as significant as banning TikTok, And we believe, or someone believes, that there's really important information that the public deserves to know about why such a decision would be justified.
That information should be shared with the public as well.
Great argument there.
It just doesn't feel right.
That really is her argument.
You can watch the whole video.
That's essentially her whole argument.
Doesn't feel right.
Doesn't feel right to me.
At least that's the argument that she'll present to the public.
Doesn't feel right.
Well, she also says that it's significant, this is such a, it'd be such a significant move to ban TikTok.
And I agree, it would be significant in that it would be, you know, it would be significantly good, be significant in a good way.
But it's also not, it's not significant in the way that she frames it.
Like it'd be this huge deal, this huge power grab to ban TikTok.
It's actually not.
It's really a pretty simple equation here.
All you have to do is balance.
So it's a balancing act.
On one hand, you have the harm that TikTok does to the American people, especially to kids.
And then you also have the harm that it does to children who are obsessed with this app and spend like all day just scrolling.
You know, when you've got millions of kids who are spending hours a day staring at their phone and just scrolling through like zombies, okay?
Not to even mention the content that they themselves are putting on this app that will live in cyberspace and infamy forever.
So you have that harm, and then you also have the national security concerns, and all the rest of it.
So that in one hand, and then you have to balance that against the harm done by banning the app.
And by saying, okay, there are a million apps you can use, but there's one that you can't.
This one's banned.
Well, what is the harm exactly?
So we know what the harm is here, and it's quite significant.
What is the harm in this hand that we're worried about?
What's the, like, dystopian scenario?
What's the worst case scenario from banning TikTok?
In what way does that hurt us as a country?
I know how it hurts us to have it.
How does it hurt us to get rid of it?
Even she can't explain that.
The people defending TikTok can't explain it.
None of them have laid out, okay, if we do this, here are the ways, boom, boom, boom, I'll lay it out for you, bullet point, here are the ways that it harms this country, it harms the American people to get rid of it.
So, does a lot of harm by having it, does really no harm by getting rid of it, it's owned by a Chinese company to begin with, so what's the problem here?
There really isn't one.
Let's get to the comment section.
If people have to have body cameras, or if police have to have body cameras, then there's no reason why schools shouldn't have this available to every parent.
Yeah, we talked about this a while ago, and I completely agree with you.
You know, there are, it's by no means a perfect solution, and there are other concerns that you could have by having cameras in the
classroom, internet access to the cameras,
you worry about the privacy and security of the kids.
But it's, like I said, not a perfect solution.
But then you have to think about what's the consequence of not having
this kind of monitoring ability of the teacher.
Well, we see the consequences of that.
And so we're stuck with imperfect solutions.
And there are ways around it.
I mean, you could do this and you could, for example, I mean, obviously, if you were to have cameras in
the classroom and they're accessible by the parents, and yeah, the parents should be able to,
if my kid was in a public school classroom, which they never will be, but if they were,
I should be able to go somewhere online and wherever they are,
I should be able to pull it up and see what's happening, see what they're being taught,
what's happening in class, I should be able to see that at any time.
There are ways to mitigate the privacy and security concerns
for the kids.
Now, there's no privacy concern for the teacher.
Because when you're in the context of being a teacher, when you're in that role of a teacher in a public school setting, government employee, there's no privacy there when you're actively teaching.
Okay, now if you're in the faculty lounge or you're going to the bathroom or something, then obviously that's different.
But when you're in the classroom and you are actively teaching, there shouldn't be any privacy.
There shouldn't be a moment when you're actually teaching when you would say, no, I don't want anyone on the outside seeing this.
Because if you're thinking that to yourself, then whatever you're doing or saying, you shouldn't be doing or saying.
Pretty simple.
Ways around it, like, well, obviously, you know, you wouldn't just put the internet feed on YouTube or something, it'd be on school website, you could only be accessed through a password that the parents have, so that gives you a certain measure of security.
The cameras would, you know, be focused on the front of the classroom where the teacher is standing, it wouldn't be, like, over the entire class, and that sort of thing.
So there are ways to mitigate the security concerns, but I think You know, we have the capability of doing that these days.
We've long had the capability, and it is long past time.
Jackie says, my husband and I were watching the show 1883 recently, and there was a scene where a pickpocket was beaten and hung in the street when caught.
I told my husband if we had something like that in place, there would be little to no crime.
Yeah, well, certainly a better system than what we do, which is just, you know, we say to criminals, okay, well, be better next time.
And then they do it again next time and say, well, this is the last chance.
I'm warning you.
And then they do it again.
On and on and on.
I watched 1883.
I don't remember.
I guess I'm assuming a scene like that must have been, I barely remember it, but it must have been close to the beginning of the show, right?
And if you're just starting the show, I hate to warn you this.
I know this wasn't really your point, but I have to warn you that it's a good show for about two, maybe three episodes.
And then it hits some kind of threshold where it becomes a woke teenage soap opera.
Okay, where this teenager is having love affairs with like Comanche warriors who come and they're all very kind and nice and the main, you know, Sam Elliott is like constantly crying all the time and it's just, it's terrible.
So, if you watch three episodes, I would just stop there.
That's the end of the show, as far as you should be concerned.
David says, NIP isn't really a slur, it's just short for Nippon, or Nipponese, which is how the Japanese refer to themselves.
It's no more a slur than JAP, or for that matter, Jerry for the Germans, or Yvonne for the Russians, or Tommy's for the British, all of which were used during World War II in equivalent contexts.
Yeah, but the main point there is used during World War II, which is why I have been told, since we talked about this on Friday, some people have told me that, oh yeah, I'm really familiar with that term.
People use it all the time.
Maybe there were some places where that term was used for Japanese people, where you maybe grew up and you were familiar with it.
I never heard it in my entire life.
Not one time.
I never encountered it on the internet.
Nowhere.
So I think it's...
Probably fair to say many more people in modern America had never heard the term, as it applies to Japanese people, than had heard it.
Which makes the plausible deniability of that sports radio host all the more plausible.
Doesn't matter anyway because he didn't defend himself.
So I can't defend him.
Honey says, I firmly believe in disassociative identity disorder, but it is extremely rare and only comes about through repeated trauma before a child's default personality is solidified, so to speak, typically before the age of six.
The brain fractures in order to protect itself.
There are markers for this diagnosis that are not able to be faked successfully, but that's why people pop online and hit record instead of seeking professional help.
Most who have DID had no clue due to the amnesia that comes with it.
It's a horrible diagnosis and not something anyone should wish to have.
Yeah, I still don't buy it.
I mean, I don't buy the disorder at all.
So we would agree that most of what you see on TikTok, or probably all of it, of what you see on TikTok of people claiming to have this disorder is made up.
And we already know that it's made up because even on the terms of this supposed illness, Is that, you know, you have these other personalities but you don't know that they're there because your brain is, as you say, fracturing.
So if you're aware of the other personalities and you can even, like, introduce them and call upon them to, like, come to the surface and introduce themselves, that's not how that works.
That's a movie plot and that's all that you see on TikTok.
So I guess you would agree with me there.
And what you're saying is over-diagnosed, but it's real.
I don't think that it's real at all.
I just think it's completely made up.
I have done some reading into this, and there's a debate about it in the psychiatric community, but there is definitely a preponderance of people who would say it's not real, it doesn't actually exist at all.
Which is why almost all the famous cases that come to mind, and there have been famous cases of it, have all turned out to be frauds.
I don't even, I don't think it makes any sense logically.
I just don't think that the human consciousness even works like that.
So what, so what are we saying?
That you're, a person's mind contains multiple conscious, so it's like essentially multiple actual distinct human consciousness, distinct people inside one brain.
I think that's the kind of thing that only makes sense.
It only seems to make sense to us because we've seen it in movies.
It's only because of the influence of movies, that kind of thing, that we think, oh yeah, sure, the brain splits into different pieces and each piece contains its own consciousness.
But then when you actually think about it, you realize that, well, that doesn't make any sense.
All right.
Leighton Pierce says, moral midgets, LMAO, another Walsh quote I'm adding to my arsenal.
Actually, I think I said mental midgets, but moral midgets.
Is even better, and I think I'll start using that.
And finally, Daniel says, Matt, I've started following your content last year, following your Dr. Phil episode, and a few months after I realized I'm in the dark on too much inside jokes, especially a particular one, so I decided to embark on a journey to watch your content from the beginning.
I've had the pleasure of watching your car videos and learn of your beekeeping journey, but this one is especially important.
I've just watched the video that brought the birth of the SPG.
Don't worry, your secret is safe with me.
I won't tell anybody about episode 737.
P.S., fellow members of the SPG, please help make sure Matt reads this on Monday.
Well, Daniel, you watched all those episodes and did all that research, which is commendable, and you've done all of that, only to now get banned from the show, because you are banned.
We don't speak of the origins of the SPG, and if you've been watching all the episodes, you know that, and you defied that one rule.
Well, it's not the one rule.
There are a lot of rules.
But that's the first one.
We don't speak of the origins.
We especially don't speak of Episode 737.
We don't speak of it.
Episode 737 does not exist.
For the SPG, Episode 737 is like the 13th floor of a hotel.
We just skip that.
It doesn't exist.
It's not there.
We go from Episode 736 to 738.
There's no 737.
And so, you, sir, are banned.
The 738, there's no 737.
And so you sir are banned.
But thanks for watching.
I want to talk to you about something I don't usually talk about, which is hair.
Not mine.
My hair is handsome and brilliant because I use Jeremy's Razors shampoo and conditioner.
I'm talking about yours.
If you're not also using Jeremy's restorative, let's call it, tea tree and argan oil blend to wash your mane, you're doing it wrong and are asking to be cancelled.
You're this close to getting cancelled.
Jeremy's Razors is more than a razor company.
It's a men's grooming brand that doesn't hate men.
Imagine that.
Their shampoo and conditioner along with their exfoliating charcoal body wash are all made from high quality natural ingredients right here in the USA.
They're sulfate free.
Which is really important because you don't want those sulfates, whatever sulfates are, and even though I still don't know what a paraben is, they're free of those too.
So that's really good.
But most important of all, Jeremy's Razors hair and body bundles are woke free.
Stop giving your money to woke companies who hate you.
Head over to Jeremy'sRazors.com and check out their shampoo, conditioner, and body wash bundles today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation, we move from problematic gifts to something a bit more familiar, which is problematic team mascots, or in this case, team nicknames.
The New York Times reports, "George Washington University will soon choose a new nickname
for its athletic teams dropping colonials after a year of pressure from students who
said the name was entangled with violence toward Native Americans and other colonized
people.
The campus community and the heart of the nation's capital has narrowed a list of 10
replacement candidates to four finalists, which are Ambassadors, Blue Fog, Revolutionaries,
and Sentinels."
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Well, just a side note here, it's a good thing that names like Revolutionaries and Sentinels don't have anything to do with violence.
You know, that's really good.
Personally, I think Blue Fog is the best option.
It would be quite appropriate to take away the name Colonials, which is something solid and meaningful, and replace it literally with Fog.
You know, something hazy, amorphous, undefined.
It's the only way to avoid offending people.
If you choose anything distinct, anything that exists as a definable entity, somebody will find a reason to be upset.
Fog is your only choice.
But then again, even fog brings to mind a history of racial trauma.
After all, the media has been reporting in recent years that fog around the world is declining due to climate change.
The website Inside Climate News reported in 2021, quote, with a warming climate, coastal fog around the world is declining.
But as we know, climate change somehow impacts racially marginalized communities the most.
And nobody knows how that's the case, but that's what they say.
And so this makes any mention of fog potentially triggering and problematic.
There's really no way out of this bind in a world where everything is racist.
The only choice is to choose a team name that doesn't mean anything at all.
Just mix up a bunch of, like, Scrabble tiles and go with whatever gibberish it spells out.
So you could be the George Washington Fifth Eternals or the George Washington Zigglebots or whatever.
I think this is the only way forward.
More from the article. "The university will hear feedback until April 28th through what it is
calling 'Moniker Madness' and a new nickname will be announced by the end of the semester," said Ellen
Morin, the university's vice president for communications and marketing. "The school's
mascot will remain George One, George Washington's head which a uniformed student wears. The change
comes amid a reckoning of the fraught history of team names across the American sports landscape."
It comes after a push by students and a victory for Native American activists last year when the National Football League team in Washington became the commanders, shedding a team name that was a slur against indigenous people.
Notice how the old name of the Washington football team now can't even be mentioned in news articles.
This is the case with like any, if you read any article on ESPN that mentions something that happened on that team years ago, they won't even say the name.
They won't print the name.
But a couple of years ago they were putting the name on merchandise and selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it every year.
Now you can't even say the name anymore.
Or at least I can't.
They can't.
I mean, I will.
The team was called the Washington Redskins, for the record, and still is called the Washington Redskins, as far as, you know, I'm concerned.
A little more from the Times.
it says, "The more we engage and the more we help the community envision what the new moniker options might look
like, and give the community a chance to try out what the future
might look like, We're getting a lot of positive engagement, Ms.
Morin said.
The Colonial's name has been part of the university's identity since 1926, replacing the Hatchetites, Hatchetmen, Axemen, and Crummen for Henry Crum, a football coach.
Opposition to the Colonial's nickname erupted in 2019 when the student body voted to remove it and the Anything But Colonials coalition was formed, according to a report a university moniker committee released in 2021.
The next year, student organizations delivered a petition to the university president's office seeking a name change.
Quote, Colonials were active purveyors of colonialism and were complicit in militarized and racialized violence, oppression and hierarchy, the petition said.
Colonialism has been historically and contemporaneously built upon usurping land, labor and autonomy from racialized communities through dehumanizing violence and suppression.
Well, they're right about one thing.
Colonials were indeed active purveyors of colonialism.
The colonists did live in colonies.
Very important insight and observation.
The rest of what they said is nonsense.
But that's not the really disturbing thing here.
The part that disturbs me, disturbs me the most anyway, is when we hear from the defenders of the colonial moniker, the people that want to keep it.
This is what they say, quote, "Some alumni, however, remain attached to the university's old name,"
Ms. Morin said. Survey respondents with an affinity for the Colonials associate it with
revolutionary spirit and fighting tyranny, according to a report. Proponents, especially
older alumni, have argued that it defines Americans during the British colonial era,
said Denver Brunsman, an associate professor of history at the university who's a
From people who are ostensibly taking the rational and correct side of the overall debate, we'll often hear this sort of thing.
with violent colonizers," said Dr. Brunsman, a George Washington scholar.
Now, this is the kind of reasoning that we hear a lot, and not just in relation to George
Washington University's nickname.
For people who are ostensibly taking the rational and correct side of the overall debate, we'll
often hear this sort of thing.
They'll say, "Well, you know, when we celebrate and honor the colonists, we're not celebrating
We're celebrating their independent spirit and their toughness.
That's all.
Both sides of the argument seem to have conceded that colonization was, in itself, a bad thing.
We cannot defend colonization in its own right, and so we must defend the people of that era by pointing to the good things they did.
But here's the thing.
Colonization was a good thing they did.
The conquest and colonization and settling of this land was overall a good and noble and courageous thing.
It is good that it happened, and we should be grateful for it.
The people who came here and claimed this land were heroes.
It was heroic.
And they were heroes not because of the other good stuff, but because they came and claimed it.
For hundreds of years, this would not have been controversial to say.
It would have been, perhaps, the least controversial thing to say.
And now, you're not allowed to say it at all.
But I will anyway.
Now, not all colonization is good.
There are evil forms of the practice.
For example, the cultural colonization that the left engages in today, when Western governments fly the pride flag on their embassies and try to export the LGBT agenda and gender ideology into Africa and other regions of the world that don't want it, that is a form of ideological colonization, and it's evil.
But the colonization that brought Europeans to this part of the world hundreds of years ago, that was good.
Not everything that happened during those many centuries was good, obviously.
History is not that simple.
People can commit evil in the pursuit of a worthwhile goal.
That happens all the time.
And nobody would ever say that the conquerors and colonizers of this land were perfect angels.
But we should celebrate them.
And we should celebrate what they achieved.
This was all happening at a time when much of the world was undiscovered, unsettled, uncivilized.
And it fell to brave and determined men, most of them living, of course, long before George Washington, to get into ships and sail into unknown sea to discover unknown lands.
And then to those after them, men and women, just as brave, to settle that wilderness and spread civilization.
They had every right to do it, according to the Law of Conquest, which was the law that governed the entire globe, and the law that every native tribe lived and killed and died by.
Despite what you may be told, a scattered assortment of primitive tribes did not own this entire hemisphere.
These tribes, which were about 3,000 years behind much of the rest of the world, if not 4,000 years, did not have some kind of divine right to keep this entire half of the globe to themselves forever.
They conquered whatever land they occupied, conquered it by brutality and bloodshed every time, and then they claimed thousands of square miles of wilderness as their own, even though they weren't using almost any of it, and couldn't defend almost any of it.
And so a far more advanced civilization came along and claimed it.
That's the way of the world.
And it's good that it happened.
What was the other option, anyway?
I mean, let's imagine history the way that these leftist idiots think that it ought to have played out.
The early explorers came to the Americas.
They find primitive people living here.
Then they go home and say, never mind, guys.
Call off the whole age of discovery thing.
That entire part of the Earth is owned by people who haven't discovered the wheel yet.
It's all theirs.
The whole thing.
We can't go there.
What happens next?
The tide of civilization comes to a crashing halt and the Earth forever remains divided by some kind of time warp where one half of it lives 3,000 years in the past?
Forget about how absurdly impossible such a scenario is.
Would it even be preferable if it could have happened?
I mean, it could not have happened.
It could not have happened that way.
It just couldn't.
But even if it could have, would it have been preferable?
Would that have been a better Thing, obviously not.
If this land had never been colonized and conquered, forget about the technological advancements that never would have been made, certainly never would have happened here, and possibly never developed at all.
Forget about the absence of modern medicine, forget about the fact that people would still be dying by diseases that don't even put us out of work these days.
Consider that, instead, that slavery would still exist here, just as it always did among native tribes.
It still would.
There would still be slavery across this entire hemisphere.
There would still be constant warfare where defeated combatants were tortured and killed.
Women were captured as sex slaves.
Children were either killed or kidnapped.
Just as was routine among Native tribes.
There would certainly be no human rights here.
No democracy.
None of that.
Now, I'm not saying that the early settlers came here to spread democracy, obviously.
I'm saying that the people who lament the settling of this land are lamenting the existence of everything they pretend to cherish.
They are pining for a version of this part of the world where nothing that they value or pretend to value exists.
And that is why they, the anti-colonialists, are once again today cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
Hope to see you there.
You can become a member and use code at Walsh at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
And if we don't see you there, talk to you tomorrow.
