Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, trans day of visibility was another opportunity for every institution in the country to fall prostrate to the ground and worship at the feet of trans people. So it was just like every other day, in other words. Speaking of which, Bud Light has announced a new partnership with Dylan Mulvaney. Mulvaney is racking up endorsement deals like a professional athlete. What does that tell us? Also, leftists claim that it would cost too much money to put armed security in every school in America. I have an idea about how we can free up the funds. The prime minister of New Zealand is asked to define the word woman, and hilarity ensues. In our Daily Cancellation, the rage mob is after me again. This time for, they say, "justifying" slavery. Did I justify it, or are they a bunch of semi-literate hysterical morons?
- - -
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:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
My Patriot Supply - Save $200 on each My Patriot Supply's 3-Month Emergency Food Kit at http://www.preparewithwalsh.com/
Policygenius - Compare Life Insurance quotes in minutes at
www.PolicyGenius.com.
- - -
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 Trans Day of Visibility was another opportunity for every institution in the country to fall prostrate to the ground and worship at the feet of trans people, so it was just like every other day, in other words.
Speaking of which, Bud Light has announced a new partnership with Dylan Mulvaney.
Mulvaney is racking up endorsement deals like a professional athlete.
What does that tell us?
Also, leftists claim that it would cost too much money to put armed security in every school in America.
I have an idea about how we might be able to free up some of those funds.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand is asked to define the word woman, and hilarity ensues.
It never gets old.
In our daily cancellation, the rage mob is after me again, this time for, they say, justifying slavery.
Did I justify it, or are they a bunch of semi-literate hysterical morons?
We'll talk about that.
Try to figure it out today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Robert Kiyosaki, the author of the best-selling book Rich Dad, Poor Dad,
has just cautioned that the world economy is on the verge of collapse,
warning of bank runs, frozen savings, bail-ins.
He suggests that you buy real gold and silver coins right now.
The recent surge in gold prices is directly tied to an extremely volatile market.
That's why gold has historically been a great hedge against the stock market and against
inflation.
The only company then that I trust to help you diversify into gold is Birch Gold Group.
Diversification has never been more important.
Precious metals will always have inherent value.
Gold is a tangible and finite resource uncontrolled by any single government or financial institution.
As such, they cannot simply be printed on a government's whim like paper currency can.
Birch Gold can also help you convert an existing IRA or 401(k)
into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical precious metals.
Ask Walsh to 989898 to get a free info kit on gold today with an A+ rating with the Better
Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews.
Birch Gold is the company that I trust to protect my future and yours.
Text Walsh to 989898 today.
On Friday, our nation once again celebrated one of its highest and most sacred holy days, the Trans Day of Visibility.
It's very important that we have this special occasion dedicated to making trans people feel visible.
You know, there's an urgent need here because other than the fact that trans people are relentlessly celebrated and promoted and elevated and worshipped by every major corporation and by every governmental institution and by most of the most, you know, prominent and powerful people in our country, Other than all that, trans people are practically invisible.
Trans people are, indeed, horribly marginalized.
That is, if you don't take into account the trans pride flags hanging all over the place, and, you know, the trans propaganda shoved in front of our faces everywhere we go, and the well-funded and coordinated campaign to promote transgenderism and recruit our children into it.
Putting all that aside, Trans people are really getting the cold shoulder from society.
I mean, if you somehow didn't notice that all of our most powerful institutions are lying prostrate on the ground, groveling at the feet of this tiny minority, then Trans Day of Visibility was likely a very educational day.
What I'm saying is that if you happen to have been walking through life blindfolded with earplugs for the past decade or so, then this sort of awareness campaign was made just for you.
Okay, then you probably were walking around on Friday like, trans people?
What's that?
I did never heard of this before.
But if you have been even vaguely conscious and aware prior to Friday, then Trans Day of Visibility may have seemed a bit redundant.
You know, Trans Day of Visibility, that's just another way of saying it's a day.
And it's just a day on the calendar.
And nevertheless, the day was dutifully commemorated.
Corporations and brands paid homage.
Government agencies displayed their fealty.
Even the National Weather Service put out a Trans Day of Visibility statement.
Because no government agency, no institution, is allowed to just be what it is and focus on fulfilling the tasks that it was made to fulfill.
No, because the primary duty now of every institution is to show their support and loyalty to the LGBT alphabet soup, and especially trans people.
Of course, Joe Biden issued a presidential proclamation, which somehow manages to be even more ingratiating and groveling than you would expect.
The statement is lengthy, it goes on for paragraphs and paragraphs, but here's a piece of it.
Transgender Day of Visibility celebrates the joy, strength, and absolute courage of some of the bravest people I know.
People who have too often had to put their jobs, relationships, and lives on the line just to be their true selves.
Today, we show millions of transgender and non-binary Americans that we see them, they belong, and they should be treated with dignity and respect.
Their courage has given countless others strength, but no one should have to be brave just to be themselves.
Every American deserves that freedom.
Transgender Americans shape our nation's soul.
Proudly serving in the military, curing deadly diseases, holding elected office, running thriving businesses, fighting for justice, raising families, and much more.
As kids, they deserve what every child deserves, the chance to learn in safe and supportive schools, to develop meaningful friendships, and to live openly and honestly.
As adults, they deserve the same rights enjoyed by every American, including equal access to health care, housing, and jobs, and the chance to age with grace as senior citizens.
But today, too many transgender Americans are still denied those rights and freedoms.
Now, all of that is completely bogus.
They're not denied any of that at all, period.
But he is right that trans people shape our nation's soul.
In a way, not the way he intends, he's correct.
Our nation's soul has been shaped, or misshaped, deformed, if you will, by its acceptance and promotion of, and acquiescence to, gender ideology.
It shapes our soul.
It defines us as a nation.
In fact, as far as the history books are concerned, quote-unquote transgenderism will be one of the only relevant facts about our era.
You know, every era in world history is going to inevitably be defined, and it's going to inevitably boil down to just a couple of things.
And this is one of our things.
It will be the thing that our descendants look back upon with astonishment and confusion.
So Biden is closer to the mark here than he intended to be.
But as we've established, every day is Trans Day of Visibility, so it continued on Saturday
in Vancouver where anti-gender ideology activist Chris Elston, who goes by Billboard Chris
on Twitter, and he's been doing great work on this topic, and he's been in this fight
for years now.
He showed up, as he so often does, to peacefully counter-protest a pro-trans rally.
And for him, counter-protesting just means that he wears a billboard, and in this case
I think the sign said, "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers," and he wears a billboard,
and he goes around and he talks to people.
And that's what he did at this rally.
But while Vancouver police watched and, for one of the cops anyway, smiled, Elston was
accosted and then physically assaulted by a trans-identified person who knows that he,
the trans-identified person, has implicit permission to act out as violently as he wants.
And he decided, as we can see here, to take full advantage of that privilege.
Watch.
Why do you think they're getting that kind of representation?
I mean, it clearly was aggressive violent assault.
You suck!
You suck!
F*** you!
F*** you, you're not wanted!
F*** you, you're a f***ing idiot!
I don't know what to say.
These police officers are mostly indoctrinated as well.
They're afraid of the mob.
They're afraid they do anything to keep law and order.
They'll be on the end of this abuse.
So it's cowardice from everybody all around.
How do you keep your composure?
What's that?
How do you keep your exposure?
You!
Yeah.
Hey, get your.
So that's about as straightforward as assault can get and we had to bleep it out there.
So might have been well, it's probably not that confusing, but the whole crowd was screaming
F you at Elston.
And then the man with the long hair and lipstick in particular was right up in Elston's face,
like six inches from his face screaming F you while he's trying to do an interview with
this media outlet.
And then Elston puts his hand up, and this is what the trans activists on social media are using to try to claim that this was not assault at all, is, well, he puts his hands on him first.
No, Elston puts his hand up to establish personal boundaries, which, by the way, you have every right to do.
Nobody has the right to go right in your face and scream at you.
You have every right to establish your personal boundaries.
And that's what he does, he puts his hand up, the trans dude responds by smacking him in the head and throwing him to the ground.
He feels entitled to his violent rage, the trans person does, and for good reason, because the police think that he's entitled to it too, which is why they did not arrest the assailant and even later justified the attack by telling Elston, and this is on camera, that it was a mutual fight.
So if you are accosted by this drooling rage mob screaming F you in your face and then smacking you in the face, that is a mutual fight as far as the cops are concerned.
But this is how we make trans people visible I suppose, by giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want all the time.
And they got some more visibility the following day when Dil Mulvaney added to his long list of corporate sponsorships with a new one from Bud Light.
Mulvaney announced the partnership on Sunday.
Listen.
Hi!
Impressive carrying skills, right?
I got some Bud Lights for us.
So, I kept hearing about this thing called March Madness, and I thought we were all just having a hectic month, but it turns out it has something to do with sports.
And I'm not sure exactly which sport, but either way, it's a cause to celebrate.
This month I celebrated my Day 365 of womanhood, and Bud Light sent me possibly the best gift ever, a can with my face on it!
Check out my Instagram story to see how you can enjoy March Madness with Bud Light, and maybe win some money too!
Love ya!
Cheers!
Go team!
Whatever team you love, I love too.
Okay.
Love ya.
Okay.
Break a leg.
Woo!
This is how persecuted these people are.
I mean, all a man needs to do is announce that he's a woman, and he'll be immediately showered with more endorsement deals than an NFL quarterback gets.
In fact, one of the only quarterbacks who rivals Mulvaney's sponsorship tally is Colin Kaepernick, and he's not even a quarterback.
The only good news that I can see here is that it should be very easy to boycott Bud Light, given that their beer tastes like rainwater siphoned out of a tin bucket that's been sitting in your backyard for three weeks.
I mean, Bud Light tastes very much like malaria and rust.
And it also tastes like nothing at the same time.
So it's kind of an impressive concoction in that way, but not one that I would actually want to consume on purpose.
The only people who do want to consume it are frat boys or 55-year-old bikers.
And nobody in between those two extremes, like literally nobody else has ever had Bud Light.
At least not in the last 20 years.
Which makes you wonder who this is meant to appeal to.
Okay, who in either of those target demos would be more likely to purchase and drink Bud Light now that a man in a dress is adorning its cans?
I mean, how does this make good business sense?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't being done in order to sell more products.
It's being done as a signal, as a symbol, as a sign of allegiance to the trans agenda.
And the way to signal this allegiance is to constantly make trans people visible.
Even if they're already as visible as any minuscule minority can possibly be or has ever been in history.
But it's still not enough.
It's never enough.
It can never be enough.
And that's partly because progressivism can do nothing but march forward, can do nothing but progress, progressivism, it progresses like bone cancer, eating away at its host until there's nothing left to consume, but also partly because trans ideology in particular is so flimsy, it's so frail, that it's always on the verge of collapse, it's perched precariously on this edge, and it must be aggressively propped up all the time, every second of the day.
The trans person individually barely believes the claims he makes about himself and his own identity.
His self-perception is this superficial, you know, ephemeral thing.
It's a lie that he whispers constantly to himself and he shouts it at the world and demands that it be shouted back to him.
No other group needs this kind of support because no other group is in a constant state of trying to convince itself that it exists.
Now there are many other groups in modern America who demand special rights and special privileges and entitlements, but the one thing they don't need is to be constantly persuaded of their own existence.
And that's the real difference here.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you have a family like I do, you already have plenty of things to worry about, to say
In a worst-case scenario, you wouldn't want them to have to worry about money on top of everything else.
We all hope that we'll never need life insurance, but mortgage companies, childcare, and other expenses, they don't disappear when you're gone.
Life moves on, and so do all of the expenses.
A good life insurance plan can give you peace of mind that if something happens to you, your family will have a safety net so they can get back on their feet and focus on what's most important.
in life.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and find
your lowest price.
If you already have coverage through work, employer-sponsored life insurance may not
offer enough protection for your family's needs and is also not going to follow you
if you leave your job.
PolicyGenius was built to modernize the life insurance industry.
Their technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and
find your lowest price.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $25 per month
for a million dollars of coverage.
Some options offer coverage in as little as a week, and they avoid unnecessary medical exams as well.
PolicyGenius as a licensed agent can help you find coverage options in as little as a week.
They work for you, not the insurance companies.
There are no added fees, and your personal info is private.
Your loved ones deserve a financial safety net.
You deserve a smarter way to find it and buy it.
Head to policygenius.com, click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com today.
I want to begin with something that still has not gotten old for me.
I mean, I made the movie and I literally wrote the book on it, and yet I still laugh every time I see this.
Every time someone, especially some high-ranking person, gets stumped by the question, the big question, the question that my six-year-old could answer with ease and that your six-year-old or your children could answer if you're raising them right.
Anyway, this time it's the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Who has given the chance to offer a definition of womanhood.
This happened at a press conference just recently.
And here's what happens.
How do you and how does this government define a woman?
To be honest, Sean, that question's come slightly out of left field for me.
Well, biology, sex, gender.
People define themselves.
People define their own genders.
Keir Starmer has said that he believes 99.9% of women do not have penises.
And I know it's a strange thing for him to say, but given recent events in New Zealand, I'd ask again, how do you define what a woman is?
Well, I think as I've just indicated, I wasn't expecting that question, so it's not something that I've, you know, formulated, pre-formulated an answer on.
But in terms of gender identity, I think people define their gender identity for themselves.
There was a little bit of honesty there that I can appreciate because he says, well, I don't have a pre-formulated answer on this.
So it's not very often that you hear politicians actually admit that.
Listen, I can't talk about this because I don't have a pre-formulated answer.
You can only ask me questions that I have pre-formulated an answer on.
And, you know, you get a little bit of that honesty sometimes from Joe Biden, who will look at a sheet of paper while he's up supposedly answering questions and look, well, they don't want me to talk about this.
Next, I'm supposed to call on this person here that I'm being instructed.
So, a little bit of honesty there.
Although, you shouldn't need a pre-formulated.
This is like if someone said, Prime Minister, do you know what 2 plus 2 equals?
Well, this is a little bit out of left field.
I was expecting to be asked this.
I mean, 2 plus 2, well, there's math, there's numbers.
There's math and numbers and, you know, people all would answer it differently.
Even if you weren't, I can understand if you weren't expecting to be asked that question, but you should still be able to answer it just like that, because that's how easy of a question it is.
But obviously, we should be, I think, precise here in what we say about this, because it's not that he knows the answer.
It's not that he doesn't know it.
Obviously, he knows the answer.
But what he can't figure out on the spot, what he can't figure out how to do, is how do you... You can't say that answer, because then the trans and LGBT mafia comes after him.
So he can't say that, so how do you... He's trying to figure out, how do I say something about this without actually giving the answer?
And the amazing thing to me is that these people still haven't even figured that out yet.
It's well established that their ideology will not allow them to actually give the right answer.
So we know that.
And they've been given many opportunities to come up with some other kind of answer, but there isn't any other answer.
It doesn't exist.
So that's established.
You would think at least at this point they'd have come up with some kind of just like standard workaround.
Let me give a... He says he doesn't have a pre-formulated answer.
Well, maybe at this point, if you're on the left, you should have some kind of stump speech ready for this.
They haven't even figured that out yet.
Like, at this point, how are you surprised by the question?
Never gets old, though.
I feel like I could make another What Is A Woman film, just the exact same movie, with different people this time, and it would be almost as entertaining.
Alright.
This is from the New York Post.
It says, Tennessee's governor plans to increase funding for school safety, posting armed guards at school in the wake of this week's, or last week now, shooting at a private Christian school in Nashville that killed three young students and three staffers.
Republican Governor Bill Lee made the promise as the state reels from one of the most violent school shootings in its history, and as more details emerge about the obsessive and stalkerish, quote-unquote, behavior of shooter Audrey Hale.
Lee told the Tennessee on Friday, I think we all understand when people are fearful, when people are angry, and when people lash out, I have those same emotions myself.
We have an obligation, I have an obligation to do what I can and work together with leaders across this community to address people's concerns and to protect our kids in whatever way we can.
The school safety plan is to place armed guards known as school resource officers at every public school in the state and provide funding for private schools to take similar actions.
Covenant, of course, is a private school.
So the goal is to get armed security at every single school, public and private, in the state.
Which absolutely makes sense.
I mean, it more than makes sense.
It's a moral necessity.
It's the most logical thing to do.
It's also, again, it's a moral requirement that if you're going to send, if we're going to send our kids off, like tens of millions of kids every single day are shipped off to schools, whether it's public or private.
And if we're going to do that as a society, then there is a moral requirement to do the, to take really basic steps to make sure that they're safe.
Dan Crenshaw was on CNN over the weekend, and he proposed something similar countrywide, nationwide.
He suggested two armed security at every school in the country.
I want you to listen to the anchor's response on this, though.
The truth of the matter is, if we had a minimum of two armed guards or police officers at every single school in America, you'd probably prevent these from here on out.
That's the truth.
Well, you said that they're random, the one through line.
in these deaths is that they are shootings, therefore they are done by guns. And guns
are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. So shouldn't helping save the
lives of children be a top priority for you as a member of the House majority?
No, it absolutely should be, which is why I say I would look to the thing that would
absolutely stop this, which is putting armed police officers at every school.
I visit a lot of schools.
I do talks at various schools.
It's very rare that I go into a school, especially the newer ones, and they don't have some kind of armed police presence there at all times.
That's a preventative measure.
That, I know, will stop this.
And there was nothing like that in these last few mass shootings.
There's no armed guards there.
So the answer is more guns?
If I'm just looking for actual solutions, that would be it.
So the answer is more guns?
No, the answer is armed guards.
The answer is armed guards, right?
Armed guards, yes.
The kind of guns that protect the president, that protect you all at CNN.
Is it easy to get into your headquarters at CNN?
Absolutely not.
There's armed guards there.
There's single points of entry.
I think we should look at our schools as a place that is precious and have the same kind of security that your corporate offices do, that we do in Congress.
You know, if we consider a place to be important where our children go to learn every day, it should have the same level of security as every other place, whether it's a shopping mall or a corporate office that's hard to get into.
You're not going to get rid of guns.
So my only criticism here, it's not really a criticism, but Crenshaw is obviously right about this.
I wish he'd given his point, his rejoinder there about CNN's offices.
I wish he'd given that a little more time to breathe, make her respond to that.
There's no response she can give, but because that's very important to observe.
She's saying, well, more guns are not going to make us more safe.
Well, yeah, but you claim that.
But as Crenshaw points out, the CNN office is where you currently are.
Those offices are guarded by armed guards.
Every cable news, you go to Fox, you go to any of these places, they're gonna be guarded by armed guards.
Does that make you more safe or less safe?
And if you're saying that it makes you less safe because there are more guns, right, you add armed security on campus, at CNN headquarters.
You're adding more guns, you're adding guns into the situation.
You're saying that makes you less safe, it would make our kids less safe.
And so have you, I mean, why don't you start with what's closest to you and what you have more control over?
So why aren't all the people at CNN coming together and saying, get rid of these armed security guards?
We don't want them.
This is making us less safe, okay?
Guns don't make you safe.
Get rid of the armed security.
None of them are saying that.
Just like, of course, all the Democrat politicians who talk about guns are going to make us safer, they go to work in buildings that are guarded by armed guards.
They are surrounded by armed guards, you know, everywhere they go, many of them.
Joe Biden, guns are going to make us more safe.
Well, the, you know, Secret Service, does he, are they, what are they carrying around?
Are they carrying around sternly worded letters to anyone that might make an attempt on the president's life?
No.
What they would say, I'm sure what people at CNN would say is, well, we need the armed security.
You can't get rid of the armed security because there's all these crazy right-wingers out there that would try to come to CNN offices and kill us.
Which is, of course, almost certainly not going to happen.
If CNN were to have no armed security at all.
They could continue on indefinitely, and there would almost definitely, almost certainly nothing would happen.
Because there just aren't that many people out there that would even want to do anything like that.
And yet, there's a chance.
There's always a chance that some crazy person could come, and based on that chance, let's have the security.
But we know there's certainly a chance that a crazy person will show up at any school where kids are, and so why wouldn't we have armed security?
Once again, it's this argument, well, more guns make us less safe.
As if there's no distinction, right, between a gun used by armed security and a gun used by a school shooter.
They both have guns!
If one person with a gun is dangerous, then two people are double as dangerous!
This is the kind of logic.
It's exactly the same logic.
You know, it's exactly the same thing as arguing that because prescription drug overdoses are a leading cause of death in America, That means all prescription drugs are bad and prescription drugs have no place in society at all and should be banned.
It's exactly the same kind of logic.
The other rebuttal is that this would be too expensive.
So Peter Strzok tweeted this in response to the Crenshaw clip.
There are 130,000 plus schools in the US.
Where are you going to find 260,000 armed guards?
How much are you going to pay them?
How much are you going to pay for ongoing firearms and tactical training?
A $40,000 a year salary, lowball, but hey, it's just our kids, alone costs $10.4 billion.
$10.4 billion is too much, he says.
Too much.
Wait a second.
$10 billion?
That's it?
Since when do we pinch pennies like this?
Okay, when it comes to the federal government, since what is $10 billion considered a lot?
That's it?
Only $10 billion?
We gave Ukraine 10 times that.
And I agree, I agree, a $40,000 a year salary for armed guards that are being paid to protect our kids is way too low.
Double that, make it $80,000 a year.
Okay, let's make it $20 billion.
That's still five times less than we gave to Ukraine.
We give, you know, it fluctuates a little bit, we give about $50 billion a year, every year, not counting Ukraine.
We give $50 billion a year, every year, as foreign aid, which are just welfare payments paid out to foreign governments.
So we give $50 billion a year to foreign governments so that they can ostensibly protect themselves and do whatever else they need to do.
Even though there's really no oversight, we have no idea how this money is spent.
Taxation without representation, you know, that describes to a T giving our tax money to foreign governments.
That's taxation, they're getting our tax money, we are not represented at all.
Be that as it may.
So we give $50 billion a year.
To foreign governments in foreign aid.
Again, that's aside from the $100 billion we gave to Ukraine.
Even if we paid the $80,000 a year salary to two armed guards in every school, that would still be half what we give to foreign governments every year.
If you're really, therefore, concerned about the money, And I think for a lot of these people on the left, it's like the first time in their lives that they've worried about government spending on something?
Well, just don't have the money, it's too much!
Okay, well then, how about this?
We don't need to spend any extra money, let's just redirect, okay?
All that money that we're giving in foreign aid, redirect that money to protecting American kids for a change.
How's that for an idea?
I'd like to see all of it.
I'd like to see, that's what I would like to see, all foreign aid cut, every penny of it, to every country, take all of that money and use it to protect our own children.
There's a radical idea.
Daily Wire has this report.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office dropped an attempted murder charge on a garage security worker who disarmed and shot an alleged thief after the suspect fired two bullets at the worker when confronted for peering into parked vehicles.
The incident occurred around 5.30 a.m.
on Saturday morning when authorities said overnight security guard Musa Dayara, 57 years old, approached a man peering into cars on the second floor of the West 31st Street garage and requested to look inside his bag on suspicion of theft.
The suspect, who police identified as Charles Rohde, allegedly pulled out a gun and shot Diara twice.
One bullet struck him in the stomach, the other grazed his ear, as the two men wrestled for control of the firearm.
Sources told The Post that Diara allegedly gained possession of the firearm and shot Rohde in the chest.
Both men were transported to Bellevue Hospital in stable condition and were placed in custody pending an ongoing investigation.
Diara, the victim here, the guy that was shot in the stomach, he was handcuffed to his hospital bed because he was a suspect in a crime.
Before Bragg's office dropped Diara's attempted murder charge, authorities also initially hit the security guard with charges of assault and criminal possession of a weapon.
Criminal possession of a weapon because he took the weapon that was being used in an attempt to kill him.
He took that weapon away and then he possessed it and now it's criminal possession of a weapon.
However, following an uproar of news reports about the altercation, a spokesperson for Bragg's office told local media prosecutors would back off of Diara in the bloody Saturday morning clash.
Pending further investigation, aiding prosecutors are still pursuing charges against Rhodey.
So, this was the story, you know, and it went viral over the weekend.
And initially the story was, they're going to charge this guy with multiple felonies because he defended himself.
First, he did his job as a security guard, which is what he's there for, sees someone attempting to break into cars, confronts that person, is shot in the stomach, manages to get the gun away from the guy, shoots him because now it's a struggle for, it's a fight to the death basically, it's a struggle for your life.
And the first reaction of Alvin Bragg's office is to charge the security guard.
And somehow the criminal possession of a weapon charge is even, that doesn't carry, that wouldn't carry the same sentence as the attempted murder, so that's like the worst charge, but that to me is even more gratuitous.
That's the most gratuitous thing of this whole entire story.
Because you know what that represents?
That doesn't just represent You know, a stupid, thoughtless, like, overreaction or not, you know.
That is, you're looking at the situation and trying to find every charge you can find to throw at this guy.
You are sifting through this to find every possible charge to throw at him.
And they only dropped the charge.
This doesn't become a non-story now just because they dropped the charge.
They only dropped the charge, obviously, because of the backlash.
If it wasn't for the backlash, this guy's probably going to prison.
We live under a regime that will punish the innocent harsher than the guilty.
That's the world we live in now.
Where they have more interest in going after the innocent than the guilty.
And in this case, you know, especially.
Because you've got this thief, kind of common criminal, turned attempted murderer.
The regime, they don't see that as a threat to them.
They don't really care about that.
That's not a threat to them.
Just to have some thug out on the street shooting people and stealing from cars and all the rest of it.
What do they care?
But if they perceive you to be a threat to them, that's when they put the hammer down.
And yeah, this security guard, we don't know anything about his politics, but that doesn't matter in this case.
Because the fact that he defended himself, you know, the fact that he was stopping a crime in process, All of these things make him an enemy of the regime, essentially.
And that's why they wanted to take him down.
And they would have, if not for the fact that people noticed and spoke out against it.
All right, Bill Maher was applauded over the weekend for this proposal.
I'll play the clip.
He says that there should be a total media blackout of mass shootings.
He wants a complete blackout.
Don't talk about him anymore.
Let's watch the clip.
The other thing I'd like to say about this is we're, the media, anxiously waiting on all this information about the shooter.
How about we have a blackout on the shooters and what they did?
Because they feed off of each other.
Yesterday was the opening of the baseball season.
Now, in baseball, when somebody runs on the field, the camera doesn't show it.
They don't give that person any publicity.
Why can't we at least do that in this country?
I don't want to hear anything about it.
We know what happened.
I don't want to know about... I don't want to know what...
Orientation this person is, how old they are, what their manifesto said.
I don't give a shit about any of it, because it's just going to inspire the next one, because they all feed on each other.
That's true.
It's the least the media could do.
Yeah, except that, I think the horror of it, you know, that there were three children involved, and then, of course, the adults, and that lives were just taken just like that, without any purpose behind it, without... There was no warning.
There's a shock to your system.
That's the idea.
And it's a popular idea.
Total media blackout.
Let's not talk about it.
Let's not talk about manifestos.
I have to say I disagree with it completely.
Maybe an unpopular view.
I have those sometimes.
And I'll tell you why.
For one thing, objectively, somebody walking into a school and slaughtering people, it's important news.
Like, it's big news.
And it should be treated that way.
Which isn't to say that we sensationalize it, but certainly it needs to be reported on.
I mean, what were the bigger stories last week that we should have been focused on instead?
And part of the story is the question of who did it and why?
I mean, these are important questions.
It doesn't change what happened or anything like that, but it's part of the story and we should know that.
And to prove my point, okay, I don't like the idea, it would never happen anyway, but let's just say, in Bill Maher's ideal world, a lot of people, this is their ideal scenario, where something like this happens, and then the media, they tell you that it happened, they give you the facts of what actually happened, they tell you about the victims, but nothing is said about the shooter.
And the shooter remains a non-entity, basically.
And that's supposed to be, you know, preferable to what we currently have.
I don't think it is.
And I'll give you one example to prove my point, or to illustrate it anyway, the Las Vegas shooting.
Okay?
That one was handled exactly as Maher and others apparently want.
We heard hardly anything about the shooter.
We were never told the motive.
We were told very little about his life.
Most people don't even remember his name.
Like, most people, there are certain names of shooters that people remember.
You know, Dylan Roof.
That's a name everyone remembers.
Adam Lanza.
But the name of the Las Vegas shooter actually takes me a second.
Steven Paddock was his name, so I remember it.
But I think if you went to the average person on the street, they wouldn't even be able to tell you his name.
And, well, that's ideal, right?
That's what we want.
That's what we want.
Like, nobody remembers him.
He's an enigma.
But is that actually a good thing?
I mean, does anyone actually feel good about the fact that 60 people were slaughtered and we were never told why?
Because if you want to know what that would be like, what would it be like in a world where these shootings happen, but the shooter is not turned into any kind of posthumous public figure after the case, and we don't care about the motive, we're never told the motive.
You want to know what that looks like?
Well, it looks like the Las Vegas shooting.
And to me, that is not good.
I do not feel good about the fact that 60 people died, 60 people were massacred, and no one ever said why.
I don't think that's a good thing.
And incidentally, you know, there's a bit of an update here.
I should say that we were never given a motive for six years.
This happened back in 2017.
So for six years, we were never told why it happened.
That is until this past Friday.
So, as it happens, three days ago.
The FBI dumped a bunch of documents indicating that, and these are the headlines now, if you go and Google the Las Vegas shooting, all these headlines will pop up that are three or four days old, telling us that a bunch of these documents came out and it indicates that maybe the reason he did it was that he was angry that the casinos in Vegas didn't give enough perks to VIP customers.
That's what they're telling us now.
That he was essentially a disgruntled customer who wasn't given enough perks as an obsessive compulsive gambler and as a VIP gambler.
He wasn't given enough perks and he was upset about that and that's why he somehow got all of that weaponry, that whole arsenal up into his hotel room and then slaughtered 60 people at a music festival.
Right?
Well, case closed, I guess.
Yeah, that was why.
Six years nothing, and then six years later, they say, oh, it's because, yeah, he was upset about not getting, you know, he didn't get enough free drinks or something.
He didn't like the sweets that he gave him in the hotel were not big enough.
Okay, no one buys that, obviously.
It's absurd.
Is what it is.
And it only goes to show that it's not a good thing when we're not told why this happens.
This also means that the authorities, the powers that be, it gives them the ability to hide things, to hide details that are inconvenient to them.
I think everybody certainly has a sense that when it comes to the Las Vegas shooting, there are a lot of details that for whatever reason, we can only speculate because all we're left with is speculation, but there are many details of that shooting that the authorities decided they didn't want us to know.
Why didn't they want us to know it?
What's the truth of what actually happened?
We'll never know.
But that's what it looks like when, um, These mass shooters are actually made into nameless, obscure people.
I don't think it's preferable.
Let's get to the comment section.
If you've been paying attention to current events at all these past few years, you know that you need to be prepared for anything.
There is no better place to start than by having a supply of emergency food on hand.
Right now, MyPatriotSupply is knocking $200 off their popular three-month emergency food kit.
You can go to preparewithwalsh.com.
That's preparewithwalsh.com.
And grab this special price before it ends.
You're going to want to move now.
Your three-month emergency food kit provides over 2,000 calories each day for optimal strength and energy in stressful situations.
You can enjoy a wide variety of breakfast, lunch, dinner, drinks, snacks.
Best of all, it's actually delicious.
Don't put off your preparedness any longer.
Tomorrow may be too late.
You have to act now.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com.
Save $200 on each kit your family needs.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com right now.
That's preparewithwalsh.com.
Before we get to the comments, I just want to show you this very quickly.
We'll have to put this up on the screen.
This is some more of what I deal with at home.
More public shaming from my wife.
But I have no shame.
I'm not ashamed.
So I'll show it to you.
She came out on the patio yesterday to take this picture of me, which she tweeted with a mocking caption.
And because we don't have, we're ordering patio furniture, all this stuff for the patio, we don't have it right now.
And as you can see, I'm smoking my cigar, I'm doing some work, huddled under an umbrella to block the sun, and I've got my slippers and my purple socks.
And that's the scene.
And listen, lots of people are making fun of me for this, being mocked pretty ruthlessly.
You may not like it, but this is what a real man looks like, okay?
This is high-performance masculinity.
This is a man at his peak, in his purple socks and sandals, or slippers, slouching under a small umbrella so that he can smoke a cigar without getting sunburned.
That's manliness.
You may not like it, again, but you don't always like what it looks like, but that's what it looks like.
It's also my wife's fault, because if I could just smoke cigars in the living room, then we wouldn't have this problem.
The socks also, by the way, are purple for the record.
They're not pink.
But I would wear pink socks.
These socks are from my sock subscription service, and I'm very proud of them.
Now, this is from the Dalai Lama, says, I assume not the one and only.
That's basically where I fall on this, Dalai Lama.
decades of politicians I'd need to see held accountable and hundreds of crimes I need
to see prosecuted before I'd consider charging Trump for anything he's been accused of.
That's basically where I fall on this, Dalai Lama.
If we actually lived in some alternate universe where politicians are held to such a high
standard of conduct that they're even being prosecuted for things like this, then that
would change the calculation for me entirely.
But that would mean that Trump was, like you point out, he would be in a line of hundreds of people before him, hundreds of politicians before him, who got prosecuted for similar things and worse things.
So this is like, again, an alternate universe where when you're a politician, you don't get away with anything at all.
Okay, and if you do have any overdue library books from 1995, we're gonna get you for that.
We're gonna try to put you in jail for that.
If that's the universe we lived in, then it would change the reaction to this.
Because then the whole argument that Trump's being singled out, that would be gone.
But that's not the universe we live in.
Which means that Trump is being singled out.
They're not suddenly becoming sticklers.
And also, in this alternate fairytale universe we're talking about, for this to make sense, not only would all these politicians be constantly getting prosecuted for things, but also the DA who brings these charges would still, first and foremost, be pursuing actual violent criminals.
Like, he's just charging anyone who steps out of the line is getting charged.
But that's not the case, which tells us that this is politically motivated.
Whatever else you think about it, politically motivated, there's just no doubt about it.
The people who support this, most of them can barely bring themselves to disagree with that idea.
It's like there's this implicit agreement among everybody on both sides of this that this is primarily politically motivated, which makes it totally outrageous.
Dan says, I'm a psychiatric nurse practitioner.
I believe that the reason the suicide rate is so high among youth, and especially people who identify as transgender, is because they're being taught that two things can be true at the same time, which is irrational, which splits their mind into an impossible position.
Irrationality and contradiction, especially in terms of a person's personal identity, are the causes of this problem.
I think there's a lot of truth to that.
I think that what it does primarily is it creates anxiety.
You know, when your mind, as you say, is split into this, and you have this internal self-contradiction going on, it creates confusion.
And when you have confusion, you have the unknown.
It's a lack of understanding.
And that's the source of anxiety.
Anxiety comes from the unknown.
As I've said before, gender ideology is like an anxiety machine.
It's an anxiety factory, just churning it out.
Wendy says, it's funny how we can tell sex by bones, even with non-human primates, but now when it comes to humans, they're trying to act like it's impossible.
Well, that's true, and we can also determine the sex of all animals.
Right, there's still, we still have not quite gotten to the point where, I'm sure we'll get there, but even most of the craziest proponents of gender ideology will, you know, they're not going to take any issue if you identify the sex of a dog or a cat or an elephant, you know, or a fish.
So there's agreement there that sex is determined biologically.
Now, I say that, but, you know, infamously in What Is Woman, I posed this question about chickens to one of the doctors who does this stuff, and she said that, well, we don't know the chicken's gender identity.
But for the most part, that's not the position they're taking right now.
So they'll admit that when it comes to animals, yeah, we can tell the sex.
But then these people would also tell you that, almost every single one of them would tell you that we're nothing but animals ourselves.
In fact, there's like almost no difference between us and any other.
We're not even better than, we're not superior to a dog or a cat.
Maybe we're worse actually, a lot of them would tell us.
And yet we belong in this special category when it comes to sex.
So for every other animal, we're just like an animal, we're no different, you say.
And for all the rest of them, we want to know their sex, we just look biologically and we can tell.
But we belong in this special category?
How does that work?
Are we part of nature or not?
Or are we these deified beings that hover over it and belong to this special category of existence?
And finally, Aaron Johnson says, Matt, you're exactly correct regarding reparations.
Truthfully, American descendants of African slaves may not even exist, had their ancestors been left to survive in Africa.
Well, it's funny you should bring that up, because we did talk about this on Friday, and it's going to shock you to learn that some people were a little bit upset by our conversation, and that is the topic of our daily cancellation.
I want to talk to you about something I don't usually talk about.
Hair.
Not mine.
My hair is handsome and brilliant, just like the rest of me, because I use Jeremy's Razor Shampoo and Conditioner.
I'm talking about yours, because if you're not also using Jeremy's Restorative Tea Tree and Argan Oil Blend to wash your mane, you're doing it wrong, and you are asking to be Cancel.
Jeremy's Razors is more than a razor company.
It's a men's grooming brand that doesn't hate men.
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, and even though I still don't know what a Paraben is, They don't have those either.
No sulfates, no parabens, but most important of all, Jeremy's Razor's hair and body bundles are woke-free as well.
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.
If you listened to the Daily Cancellation on Friday, then you already knew that this Daily Cancellation was coming.
On Friday, we discussed the idea of reparations, in particular the plan proposed in California that would dole out $5 million apiece to black residents as repayment for the enslavement that they never experienced and that nobody they've ever known or spoken to has experienced.
During that segment, I expanded on a counterpoint A counterpoint to reparations that had been made by a black college professor named Wilford Riley, which was a restatement of an argument made by others through the years, including Dinesh D'Souza, which says that reparation proposals are incoherent because they rest on the speculative notion that descendants of slaves are in a worse place today than they otherwise would have been if their ancestors were never enslaved.
Now, if this speculation is not accurate, if they are not in a worse spot, then there's nothing to repair.
Nothing to repair for them, anyway.
Certainly we know that the slaves suffered greatly, but the slaves are all dead, so the reparations don't go to them, but rather go to people who, again, never experienced slavery.
And so we must ask what exactly we are repairing as far as they are concerned.
According to this argument, which I find compelling and interesting, the more plausible speculation is that, in fact, the ancestors of slaves are in a better spot today, not worse, because of slavery.
This doesn't justify slavery or make it okay, obviously.
It simply calls into question the basic logic behind allowing a group to literally cash in on historical atrocities.
That's the point.
And, in an incredibly surprising turn of events, people aren't happy with this point.
This came as a great shock to me personally, as I'm a people pleaser who always tries to avoid controversy and conflict whenever I can.
But it found me this time, maybe for the first time, starting as always with the requisites media matters clip.
Our PR reps pulled a two minute slice of the 10 minute monologue, did not provide any context, didn't even clarify that this was a conversation about reparations specifically.
And they posted the clip, which then went viral.
Now, for reference, we'll play the actual video they posted so that you understand where we are, what we're talking about for the rest of the conversation, which again is just one small sliver of a much longer monologue where I flesh out all these points and also explain why I'm making the points and what the overall point is.
But Media Matters never bothers with silly things like context, and they also know that the drooling hordes who get worked up by out-of-context clips also aren't going to stop to wonder about the context.
So with that in mind, here's what they posted.
In fact, it seems rather clear that black Americans are doing better here today than they would be had their ancestors generations ago never been brought to these shores.
We can prove this point by simply asking which African country anyone asking for reparations would prefer to live in.
The answer, of course, is none of them.
Now, you might offer the rebuttal that if slavery never existed, if we're reimagining history without that institution at all, then Africa itself would be in a better shape, better place, and better shape, and maybe indeed black Americans would be better off there.
But this seems highly unlikely, and it also ignores the fact that Africans participated in slavery and the slave trade as much as they were victims of it.
Not to mention, if we're reimagining the world without African slavery, then we have to also imagine it without all other forms of global slavery, since African slavery was merely one variety, one offshoot of this global institution.
And now we have totally, in that point, rewritten the history of the world in a way so dramatic that it's absolutely impossible to say which individuals today would end up worse or better in this alternate universe.
I mean, if you go back in time and get rid of slavery from the entire world, you have just... it's impossible to say what the world looks like right now.
Actually, what we can say is that we'd all end up worse.
All of us today would be in a worse spot.
If slavery never existed at all across the entire globe.
Because a change that significant would likely shift the course of events in a way that would mean none of us would even exist.
It would be a world full of other people who are not us.
So I know that I benefit today from virtually everything my ancestors did and everything did to them.
Because if any of that had not happened, there's a very good chance that I never would have come into being.
And as I see it, I benefit from being if the other option is not being.
Well, you can already imagine the reaction, so we don't need to read through very many of these, but here are a few people of the thousands who expressed their outrage at a point that, it goes without saying, none of them even attempted to refute.
Heath Mayo, a man who calls himself a Christian conservative and who also happens to look exactly like his name for the record, tweeted, This is Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, and increasingly you're just a bad person if you support this know-nothing filth with your subscription dollars.
Bernice King, the daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., responded, "And here it is. One of the reasons why some don't
want the horrors of slavery taught in schools.
Because they don't see it, or Jim Crow, as an atrocity, but a grotesque statement, an egregious insult to the countless
Africans who perished in the Atlantic or were enslaved here."
Of course, race-hustling shill Roland Martin got his two cents in.
This analysis by Matt Walsh is the dumbest s**t you'll ever see.
This idiot wants to opine about the condition of Africa, yet makes no mention of racist white colonialism.
Hell, racist whites redrew the boundaries of Africa at the 1885 Berlin Conference.
What an a**hole.
Wajahat Ali kept it simple.
Pro-slavery, eh?
Hell of a plot twist.
A guy named Ryan McMakin posted, "Walsh has been good on exposing the dumbness of the whole men can be women thing,
but there are not words sufficient to describe how stupid this statement about slavery is.
The argument is the sort of arcane, trivial mental masturbation I would expect from a college freshman philosophy major."
And given that his apparent point here is to basically say, "Stop saying slavery was so bad,"
it's a totally bizarre hill to die on.
And there was also a lot of stuff like this, "When Matt Walsh eventually dies, a hopefully--"
Now, I actually agree with that last one.
Not the bit about hoping I die painfully.
I prefer not to die painfully.
But the second part.
I know that many people will celebrate my death, and I take great pride in that.
If I spent my life Fighting against the left's cultural agenda and then I died and they didn't cheer over my death and mock me as I lay buried in the ground?
That would be a strong indication that I was incredibly ineffective.
The left will celebrate your death if they perceive you as a serious threat.
And I certainly wish to be a serious threat.
But that aside, let me offer a few thoughts in response to the responses.
Two thoughts to be precise.
First, predictably.
Everybody in the outrage mob accuses me of arguing that slavery wasn't bad, or that it wasn't an atrocity, or that it was actually good.
I didn't say any of those things, nor did I imply or suggest them.
In fact, I refer to slavery as an atrocity in the very segment where Bernice King says I argue that it wasn't an atrocity.
Obviously, I believe it was an atrocity.
Everyone believes that.
It's a point so self-evident and clear that it doesn't even need to be said.
Okay, it's actually, it is a pointless thing to even say because everyone knows it.
There is not a pro-slavery faction in the modern United States.
So there's no need to continually assure each other that slavery was bad.
Did you know slavery was bad?
Yeah, it was bad.
It's really bad.
Very, very bad.
It's all bad.
It's really bad.
We know that.
It's one of the few things that we all still know.
So when the Pitchfork Mob accuses me of holding the view that slavery wasn't bad, What they mean is that all I'm allowed to say about slavery is that it was bad.
Okay?
They want us to talk about slavery.
They definitely want us to talk about it.
They want us to harp on it.
They want us to go on and on about it, just like they do.
But the only thing we're ever allowed to say is some variation of, it was bad, over and over and over again.
If you try to move on to the next sentence, it was bad, end of sentence, and then continue and say something else about it, if you try to articulate some other thought, if you try to say anything else about it, you are automatically guilty of thinking that it's not bad.
In other words, if it was bad isn't your only thought about slavery, then you don't have that thought about it at all.
So, either the only thing you think about slavery is that it was bad, or you think it was good.
You're not allowed to have, you know, you're only allowed to have one thought per topic.
And this is how they treat slavery, it's how they treat every other subject.
They have, for every subject, here's the thought you can have on that, and if you're going to talk about it, yeah, go ahead and talk about it, but only just say that.
Continue saying that over and over and over again.
This is what makes debate and dialogue on the national level totally impossible, not to mention incredibly boring, when we're all just repeating back to each other the stuff we already know and has long been established.
How can we have a dialogue when you aren't allowed to develop your thoughts beyond, this was bad, very bad, it was so bad, it was so so bad, it was the bad thing, it was a really bad thing.
You know, it wasn't always this way.
As I mentioned, Dinesh D'Souza has been making a similar argument for years.
In fact, here he is on NPR, NPR of all places, because this is the kind of thing you used to be able to say on NPR 22 years ago.
Listen to what he says.
As a native of India, a country colonized by the British for centuries, and as a person of color living in the United States, I cannot agree with the idea of reparations.
The concept of reparations is based on the premise that the descendants of slavery and colonialism are worse off as a result of those historical crimes.
In reality, these descendants are vastly better off than they would have been had slavery and colonialism never occurred.
Let me explain.
When I was a young boy growing up in Bombay, I noticed that my grandfather, who had grown up under British colonialism, had developed a strong hostility to the white man.
I realized that he had an anti-white animus that I didn't share.
This puzzled me.
Why did he and I feel so differently?
Finally, I figured it out.
The reason for our difference of perception was that colonialism had been pretty bad for him and pretty good for me.
Another way to put it is that colonialism had injured those who lived under it, but paradoxically it proved beneficial to their descendants.
Virtually everything that I do and cherish has been shaped by a worldview that was brought to India by colonialism.
I write in English.
I work on a computer.
I believe in individual dignity, in human rights, in democratic government, in equality before the law, in the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
All these things are the product of Western civilization.
Now, again, NPR, you could say that, 22 years ago.
Now, it's the sort of thing that you'll only ever hear uttered on conservative media, and even there, most of the time, not, and if you do hear it, it's shocking.
It's utterly shocking.
Now, leftists, of course, disagreed, I would imagine, many of them did, with that at the time, but there wasn't any nuclear explosion of mindless outrage with a bunch of slobbering dummies screaming, you support slavery!
You think slavery is good!
People understood the point that he was making because it is at a minimum valid and logical and thoughtful.
It also happens to be self-evidently true.
But these days, thanks to social media, thanks to the increasing derangement of the left, thanks to plummeting IQ scores and all the rest of it, you cannot make valid and logical arguments because a valid and logical argument requires you to develop a thought beyond the one simple shallow slogan that the left demands we all consign ourselves to.
Second, you can somewhat understand the left's confusion here, I suppose.
They firmly believe that the ends justify the means.
That's one of the core beliefs of their ideology, the ends justify the means.
So, when they hear this discussion, they assume that I'm making an ends justify the means argument.
Because if they were making the argument, that's what they would be doing.
If I'm saying that people today have benefited from historical atrocities, I must be saying that the atrocities were actually good and justified, because that's how they think.
Well, that's not how I think.
Okay?
I think that there are no results that could ever retroactively justify an evil act.
Let me give you an example.
If I were to shoot you and send you to the hospital, and you don't die, and while you're at the hospital, they, you know, because they're doing all these tests and everything, they happen to discover, incidentally, that you have an aggressive form of cancer.
And so they treat the cancer, and you survive.
My attempted murder does not retroactively become a form of medical treatment.
Okay, it does not become good.
Now, it's true that if I hadn't shot you, you never would have discovered your cancer, perhaps, and then, or maybe you would have discovered it too late.
So, paradoxically, me shooting you resulted in saving your life.
But it was still an act of objective evil to shoot you.
Okay?
So, that's the way that works.
Now, here's the thing.
If, expanding the analogy, If, after having your cancer treated, you go on to have children.
And then your children have children.
And your children's children have children.
And many years down the line, your descendants try to sue my descendants for the generational trauma caused by my assault against you.
Well, if that were to happen, then in that case, it would suddenly become relevant to point out that these people claiming damages, decades and decades removed from the incident, probably wouldn't exist.
Their entire family tree would be erased, if not for the evil act that they are now trying to cash in on.
That's the crux of it.
Okay, the point that you have most likely benefited from historical evils becomes relevant when you attempt to quantify and monetize the trickle-down harm that you claim the historical evil has done to you.
It's at that juncture that someone needs to make the obvious point.
This thing that happened long ago was very, very bad.
It was very bad for your ancestors.
It is not, however, very bad for you.
Yet, you are the one claiming quantifiable and financial harm.
The reparations demands are what makes this point especially relevant, but even without reparations, there's still value in acknowledging what we're talking about here and thinking about it.
Yes, it is true that you likely would not be here today if history had not unfolded exactly as it did.
Right?
The butterfly effect.
The good, the bad, the ugly, the atrocious, all of it led to you and to me.
Rewrite history and you will have written us out of the book completely.
Aside from disqualifying any reparations demand, which I think it does completely, what else does that mean for you?
Well, it simply means that we shouldn't live our lives obsessed with wrongs committed long ago, consumed by resentment over ancient sins, It doesn't mean those sins were not sins, okay?
It doesn't mean that the wrongs were actually right.
It just means that we should stop trying to make ourselves the victims of the very events that resulted in our existence.
Our existence in the most prosperous and comfortable civilization in history, I might add.
We should, in a word, move on with our lives.
The lives that we are blessed to be living.
Because what else is there to do?
But just keep living in the moment, in today.
That's the point.
And that's also why the Outrage Mob is today, once again, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to our members' block, hope to see you there.