Ep. 1237 - Left Wing Activists Are Dying By Their Own Ideology
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the murder of an Antifa activist in Brooklyn this week has exposed some very ugly things about leftism. We'll discuss. Also, a bunch of men claiming to be non-binary invaded a tech conference for women. NBC News demands answers from a GOP congressman whose distant ancestors owned slaves. And an actress comes out to tell her abortion story, but reveals more than she intended to.
Ep.1237
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Watch Episodes 1-7 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
Cozy Earth - Use code WALSH40 for up to 40% off your order!
http://www.cozyearth.com
Genucel - Exclusive discount for my listeners! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
Tommy John - Get 20% OFF your first order: https://tommyjohn.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
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the murder of an Antifa activist in Brooklyn this week has exposed some very ugly things about leftism.
We'll discuss that.
Also, a bunch of men claiming to be non-binary invaded a tech conference for women.
NBC News demands answers from a GOP congressman whose distant ancestors owned slaves.
And an actress comes out to tell her abortion story, but reveals more than she intended to in the process.
all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
People always say, "Happy dog, happy life."
Well, I always say, I say it all the time.
It's the mantra I live by.
And if that's really the case, you need to be giving your dog Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is dedicated to improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Well, let Rough Greens Bring your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat.
And that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Ruff Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
A free Jumpstart Trial Bag can be at your door in just a few business days.
Go to ruffgreens.com slash matt or call 844-RUFF-700.
That's r-u-f-f greens dot com slash matt or call 844-RUFF-700 today.
The other day I talked briefly about the murder of someone named Ryan Carson.
He's the 32-year-old Antifa activist who was stabbed to death around 4 a.m.
in Brooklyn on Monday.
And I said that, among other things, his killing shows the importance of knowing
your surroundings and taking proactive steps to protect yourself and your family.
Now, leftists can call that whatever they wanna call it, stereotyping, racial profiling, white supremacy, whatever.
The truth is that it's common sense to get out of a situation when you assess that you are unsafe.
And if an agitated young male in a hoodie on a street corner starts kicking mopeds
and ranting and raving in front of you, as Ryan Carson's killer did, then you don't stare at him,
you don't tell him to chill or shove him several times in the chest,
especially when he says, "I'll kill you."
What you do is you get yourself and your loved ones as far away as you can.
If somebody calls you a racist because of that, then that's their problem.
It's better to be alive and quote-unquote racist than dead and tolerant.
Now, over the last 48 hours, though, it's become very clear that the murder of Ryan Carson is about much more than what Ryan Carson did or failed to do at 4 a.m.
on Monday morning in Brooklyn.
The response to Carson's killing from all corners of the left, from Carson's friends to local politicians to the media, doesn't simply tell us that leftists are hopelessly naive, ignorant of very real threats to their lives.
It does tell us that, but it also tells us a lot more, because this is a bigger story than that, it turns out.
Now, the response to Ryan Carson's killing also makes it clear that leftists simply don't care about human life or humanity in general.
We know that because they're not even going through the motions of demonstrating some pretense of concern for Carson, much less the policies that led directly to his death.
What this means is that leftism is collectivism in every sense and at every level.
It views its own adherence not as people, but as replaceable, fungible cogs in the revolution.
It uses its own followers as essentially cannon fodder in the culture war.
One death is irrelevant.
It's collateral damage.
Now, we can debate when this began or whether it's always been the case with leftism, but it's impossible to dispute that the left is openly admitting this now.
Consider the fact that within hours of Ryan Carson's death, his left-wing friends set up a GoFundMe.
And that part is not unique.
You know, this happens a lot.
Somebody dies, and next thing you know, there's a GoFundMe.
But the thing is that they didn't create this GoFundMe to cover funeral costs or to help Carson's family.
Instead, Carson's friends set up a GoFundMe for themselves so that they could skip work That's not an exaggeration.
It's precisely what they wrote.
Here's the pitch on their GoFundMe page.
"We are a collective of Ryan's close friends reeling from a brutal loss.
We're asking for your help on behalf of his partner in easing the burden and stress of this horrifying situation
so that we can have space and time to grieve and remember Ryan.
Immediate needs are to offset the costs of working class people taking time off of work to properly mourn."
So, they want to take a vacation.
They want vacation days.
And they want to be paid.
They want a paid vacation.
And they need to crowdfund for that.
Crowdfunding some bereavement leave.
Even though they're not even related to the guy.
Like, forget the family.
Forget the funeral, apparently.
Just pay them to sit around and mourn.
I mean, think about this.
Their friend died, this all happened, this Monday, early Monday morning is when he was killed.
So, and the GoFundMe was up very quickly.
So, their friend died, I mean, brutally, horrifically, stabbed to death in the heart, bleeding to death on a sidewalk, right?
And the first thing they think to do is start a GoFundMe to raise funds for themselves.
Which means that someone in the friend circle had to suggest this almost immediately after he died.
Hey, did you hear Ryan was killed?
It's awful.
You know, we should start a GoFundMe.
Oh, for funeral costs?
No, no, no, for us.
So we could take some time off work.
And then everyone else apparently agreed to it.
It's incredible.
But Ryan's comrades didn't stop there, rather.
For good measure, they also told media outlets that if he were alive, Ryan would feel bad for his killer.
As the Daily Mail reported, quote, Unfortunately, Ryan Carson could not be reached for comment on this.
teenager who stabbed him to death and think of him as a victim of a broken system, say friends.
Unfortunately, Ryan Carson could not be reached for comment on this, and although if we're being
completely honest, his friends are probably right. On social media before his death,
Carson celebrated violence directed at police officers.
He called the torching of a Minneapolis police station, quote, really good.
He cheered when Rush Limbaugh died, saying, quote, hell yeah.
He also threatened an elected official, saying that he wanted to, quote, shove this little effing nerd in the locker where he belongs.
At the same time, Carson pretended to be a compassionate person when he was talking about violent thugs and drug addicts, who he wanted to have constant state-funded access to narcotics.
So the criminals who terrorize entire cities are the good guys, according to Ryan Carson.
But the talk radio hosts and politicians who disagree with him, on the other hand, well, they deserve to die.
Now, as depraved an ideology as that is, this is what resonates on the left now.
Carson's friends value that ideology more than the memory of their dead friend.
They want to promote the very same policies, defunding the police, legalizing injection sites, putting the mentally ill homeless back on the streets.
They want to lean into those policies that got Carson killed in the first place.
That's because they don't care about him.
They care about the revolution.
Now, you might have heard claims on social media that Carson's girlfriend, who was with him when he was killed, Claudia, there have been reports on social media that she was not cooperative with police in the hours after her boyfriend's death.
And we can't confirm that, so I don't know if that's true or not.
Certainly, if it's true, it would be in keeping with Claudia's social media posts where she says that all cops are bastards.
But here's what we do know.
According to the New York Daily News, Claudia somehow mispicked, quote-unquote, mispicked her boyfriend's killer in a lineup.
And she's the only eyewitness to the crime.
She saw it happen right in front of her, from just a few feet away.
But she reportedly misidentified the person who did it.
Now, without seeing all the people in the lineup, it's hard to make anything out of that.
Eyewitnesses are also notoriously unreliable.
But it is another interesting detail to note, all the same.
Politicians in New York don't appear to be interested in getting to the bottom of any of this, or making sure that these sort of things don't happen again.
Like Carson's friends, they're motivated solely by ideology.
So take a look at so-called tributes to Ryan Carson from New York State Senator Julia Salazar, or Public Advocate Jumaine Williams, or Council Member Sandy Nurse, or State Senator Jabari Brisport, or State Representative Emily Gallagher.
In all of these tributes that have been pouring in, none of them talk exactly about how Carson died or anything like that.
Instead, they all mindlessly tell people to continue practicing his brand of left-wing activism.
Salazar, for example, eulogized Carson by talking about the importance of humane drug policy.
Williams went on about the need for environmental justice.
They're skipping over any form of self-reflection about why Ryan Carson is dead in favor of repeating their talking points.
It's like Callis and Craven doesn't even begin to describe this.
Of course, wherever there's Callis and Craven behavior, there's also the corporate media.
And they've also been working overtime to obscure as many facts as possible about this Antifa foot soldier's unfortunate demise.
In the hours after Carson's murder, several outlets, including the New York Daily News and the New York Post, refused to provide any kind of description for the suspect.
Even though we could see it on security camera footage, so we all knew some of the basic details of his physical description.
The New York Daily News, for example, called the killer an, quote, unhinged stranger.
The article later describes the murder as a belligerent stranger.
But there's no mention of any kind of description, even though the article cites police sources who have clearly seen the surveillance footage showing the murder.
So this is deliberate.
Either the police or the media or Carson's girlfriend decided to hide some of the information.
There's no getting around that.
And as incredible as that is, it gets worse.
Somehow, in a development that's unprecedented in New York's storied history of perp walks, this cover-up continued even after police arrested Carson's alleged killer.
Yesterday when police arrested the suspect who allegedly stabbed Carson to death on the street, CBS News made the editorial decision to blur the alleged killer's face.
They deliberately hid his identity.
Watch this.
This is footage of the man police say they were looking for.
He has not yet been identified, but we are blurring his face at the moment while charges are pending.
We watched again as all of this went down.
More than a dozen officers were around when it happened before entering a home here on Lafayette Ave.
I mean, it's amazing.
To be perfectly clear, the suspect that police arrested is an 18-year-old adult by the name of Brian Dowling.
There is no conceivable reason to blur his face in this context.
The excuse from CBS, which appears to be, well, this adult murder suspect hasn't been formally charged yet, so therefore you don't get to see his face.
This has never been used by any major media outlet in the history of this country, as far as we can tell.
It's never been used by CBS.
Thousands of times they have put footage of people getting arrested on TV, and they have never blurred the face.
They certainly didn't do that with Daniel Penney.
Daniel Penney didn't kill anyone in cold blood.
He's not a murderer.
He saved people on a subway car from getting violently attacked.
Which, by the way, you remember that in that case, Jordan Neely was going crazy on a subway.
Daniel Penney intervened.
And we're told that Jordan Neely, he was not a threat to anyone.
He wasn't waving a gun around.
Well, you see in the case of Ryan Carson, how quickly it goes from belligerent guy screaming to stabbing someone to death.
In the span of seconds, Brian Dowling went from screaming on a street corner to stabbing a man to death.
That's how quickly that happens.
Did Daniel Penney save people on the subway from the same fate?
It's quite possible.
And yet, even before Daniel Penney was outrageously charged with any crime, news outlets had no problem putting his face everywhere.
Before he was arrested!
What explains the different treatment?
Well, of course, Daniel Penney is white, and Brian Dowling is black.
That shouldn't matter, but when corporate media makes everything about race, it's hard not to notice.
And more to the point, Daniel Penney was a law-abiding citizen.
He served his country in the Marines.
Then he exercised his right of self-defense and his right to defend others around him.
So naturally, they'll want to shame him at every opportunity.
Brian Dowling, on the other hand, he did exactly what leftists wanted him to do.
If what authorities are saying is true, he contributed nothing to society.
Instead, he committed a bunch of crimes, behaved like a lunatic, and terrorized everybody around him.
In fact, shortly before he murdered the Antifa activist in Brooklyn, Dowling was allegedly involved in other kinds of incidents.
Let's watch this.
What we've learned about 18-year-old Brian Dowling is that there appears to have been a summons from last year for disorderly conduct, and that just a couple months ago, after Dowling was in an argument with his girlfriend at her apartment, he was breaking things, and it actually led to his aunt calling 911 and describing him as emotionally disturbed.
There's a lot of thoughts that maybe there's a mental health aspect to it, but certainly it is a brutal murder that happened with this man stabbed to death in front of his own girlfriend.
So instead of throwing Brian Dowling in an asylum where he apparently belonged, leftist policies ensured that he wouldn't spend a day in any kind of institution.
The fact that he may have killed a leftist is unfortunate in their eyes, but they don't really care.
A little bit of a friendly fire in their view, but shouldn't distract from their agenda.
Now, we've been seeing this a lot lately.
The other day, I mentioned the brutal murder of a 26-year-old white left-wing tech CEO in her luxury apartment building in Baltimore.
The CEO, named Pava LePere, was an avowed leftist.
She had BLM propaganda all over her social media feeds.
She seemed to really harbor an irrational hatred towards white men.
How did she die?
Well, she let a black guy she didn't know into her apartment building, and then she got into an elevator with him.
The surveillance footage shows all of this.
LePere's mangled, dead body was found on the rooftop of her apartment a few days later.
Now, if you were covering this story, and pretty much every news station in the Baltimore area has covered it, then you'd think you'd at least want to inform viewers of exactly how LePere was murdered.
But that's not what's happened.
So here's one example of local news coverage of LePere's death.
This is from Fox St.
Louis, and I want you to notice what is not mentioned here.
We have new developments surrounding the investigation into the woman who was killed inside an apartment complex near Mount Vernon.
Well, city police are now saying they found the body of Ecomap CEO Pava Lapierre.
Lapierre inside the complex that was once the historic Congress Hotel.
Investigators say there were signs of blunt force trauma.
Detectives were originally called to the building after someone reported the 26-year-old missing.
Police are asking anyone with information that could help solve this case to contact them.
So a lot of reports are like this.
They say that she was killed in her apartment building, but they don't tell you how the killer got inside.
And that's a curious omission when you think about it.
Because if you really cared about Pava LePere, or even if you just cared about accuracy in journalism, you'd think that maybe that would be one of the first things you'd mention.
Pava LePere let this killer into her building.
She died because she was too welcoming, she was too trusting, she was too tolerant, too naive.
She died because she didn't make stereotypical assumptions.
Why not tell that story to the public?
Now the omission is particularly notable given recent history.
It wasn't all that long ago that the media told us that unless we allow every random black guy into our apartment buildings, then we're racist and we should lose our jobs.
So here's a story that you almost certainly don't remember.
It's from the dark ages of 2018, and that year a white woman named Hillary Thornton decided to block a black man from entering her apartment building.
Hillary had cracked the door to let her dog out, then an unknown black guy tried to enter the building.
And Hillary said that she wouldn't allow him inside.
What happened next?
Well, the entire national news media branded Hillary Thornton as a racist.
And she was fired from her job.
Watch.
We are hearing the other side of a story that's making national headlines.
A white woman inside a downtown loft building, not letting a black man inside Friday night, has hit social media and gone viral.
And the woman in the video says he didn't have a key fob to get in and forced his way inside.
She reached out to me to tell her side of the story after being called a racist and receiving death threats.
It's an exclusive interview you will see only on Fox 2 tonight.
This is the viral video of Hillary Thornton trying to stop Darion Tolles from entering the Elder Shirt Lofts just off Washington in the city.
Thornton wanted people to know her side of what happened.
My only intent was to follow the direction that I've been given by our condo association board members repeatedly, and that is to never allow access to any individual that you do not know.
Thornton showed us several emails from the association stating what residents should do when dealing with a situation like this.
Hillary says Dorian said he was trying to get into the building as she had the door cracked as her dog went to the bathroom.
And I simply asked if he lived there.
Because the direction from the condo association is so repeated that if you don't know the person, you do not let them in.
Thornton adds she told him she couldn't let him in, then asked if he had a key fob.
That's the only indicator that any resident has that they live in that building.
He would not answer me.
So Hillary Thornton's life was destroyed because she did the right thing.
She did what her condo association told her to do.
She also did what common sense tells you to do.
You got someone who you don't recognize in the building, doesn't have a key fob, won't even tell you that they live there.
Don't let him in.
I wouldn't.
Pavlo Pera, on the other hand, did what the left of corporate media demanded.
And now she's dead because of it.
And none of the activists who gave her that horrible advice, none of the media outlets that relentlessly attacked Hillary Thornton are acknowledging any of that.
Like Ryan Carson's friends, they don't care.
They're worried instead about the Cultural Revolution.
They don't care about the innocent people who die as a result.
You might have noticed that there have been several other prominent examples recently of leftist activists dying horrible deaths because of left-wing policies.
This is becoming more and more common.
And with every new tragic example, the response from the left is always the same.
It's detached.
It's self-absorbed.
Completely focused on politics.
All of them.
Corporate media politicians.
The foot soldiers in Brooklyn.
They all want their ideology to win.
That's all they care about.
People do not matter to them.
Human life doesn't matter to them.
The higher the body count, the more forcefully they'll clamor for social justice.
Every fatality is more evidence that they're right somehow.
What they'll never admit is that Ryan Carson and Paul LePere, many more victims like them, have already experienced the inevitable consequences of this suicidal, insane ideology.
And precisely for that reason, no one will ever hear from them again.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
These days I'm constantly traveling.
Being on the road as much as I am, I don't sleep well at night.
I know it's because the hotel sheets are not as comfortable as my Cozy Earth sheets at home.
Cozy Earth sheets are the softest, most luxurious sheets I've ever owned.
My wife and I have their white bamboo sheets on our bed.
Those bamboo sheets are temperature regulating, helping us sleep great every night.
If you're a hot sleeper and your spouse is a cold sleeper, you're going to need these sheets.
Cozy Earth offers an array of sizes and 11 colors to match your unique style and preferences.
Their sheets are made to withstand the test of time.
My Cozy Earth sheets get softer and softer with every wash.
Don't just take my word for it.
They have over 5,000 happy customer reviews on their site.
What are you waiting for?
Cozy Earth offers a 100-night guarantee, so there's no harm in trying.
Invest today and a good night's sleep.
Right now, you'll save 40% off your next purchase with promo code WALSH40 at CozyEarth.com.
That's promo code WALSH40 at CozyEarth.com.
From the Daily Mail it says, Female job seekers at a Women in Tech conference have reacted with fury after a number of men crashed the networking event seemingly taking advantage of the acceptance of non-binary people.
The scandal erupted at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing in Orlando, Florida.
which is among the most lucrative job-finding conventions for young female professionals to meet major tech firms,
often right out of college.
This year's summit, held from September 26th to 29th, was swarmed with men also looking to land a big interview with
firms including Amazon, Apple, and Google.
The reason many were welcomed appeared to be the women's event allowing non-binary individuals to also attend, sparking
anger among women, feeling the move was a shameless attempt to take advantage
of gender diversity programs.
Furious attendees took to social media to slam the men for gate-crashing the women's event.
However, some pointed the finger at vague benchmarks for entering the summit, as men could simply identify as non-binary.
So there's a lot of outrage about this on the internet.
It was all quite hilarious.
Here's a report from an outlet called Ketchup News, which shows us some of the women who are not so pleased about this.
Career conference for females in tech was taken over by male attendees.
They were there just purely for the career fair.
Social media clips filmed at the Grace Hopper, the world's largest gathering of women technologists,
show men standing in line to meet with recruiters.
This is a space for women in tech.
This is one of those few limited resources that isn't for you, it's for us.
Some of the male attendees reportedly lied about being non-binary just to get in.
in.
"But it's interesting that the large majority of the people that actually ended up in the
event had name tags with 'he/him' and have no searchable history of identifying as non-binary."
Several tech workers defended the men for trying to capitalize on job opportunities
not meant for them, saying that the entire concept was wrong.
"Let's be honest, there is no need for a conference just for women because if it was
the opposite for men, then it would be sexist."
Just because you are a woman doesn't give you the right to talk to a big firm recruiter.
Guys work just as hard and they don't get that chance.
No searchable history of identifying as non-binary.
What do you mean searchable history?
Have you been identifying every single one of these guys?
Or not guys, they don't identify as guys.
Have you been identifying every single one of these they-thems and then going online to search to find out exactly when they started identifying as non-binary?
If you are, then you're a creep, but also That's highly bigoted, because first of all, if someone decided this morning that they're non-binary, that is a totally valid identity.
And also, there's no rules in the non-binary rulebook, last I checked, that says that if you're non-binary, you have to go by they-them pronouns.
You go by he-him pronouns.
You could go by any pronoun.
You could use no pronouns.
You could make up a pronoun.
These are the rules.
The rules are that there are no rules.
And we'll talk more about that in a second, but we also, we should also note that the, I think it's, the title is Chief Impact Officer, I believe.
A guy named Cullen White was at the event, and he actually, at some point, the invasion of non-binary men got to a point where it was a real crisis at the event, so the Chief Impact Officer stood up and called out the men from the stage.
Let's watch some of that.
This is supposed to be a joyous event.
That centers around you.
Yesterday it became clear that there are a far greater number of cisgender men attending than we had anticipated.
Simply put, some of you lied about your gender identity to register for the event.
And as evidence by the stats and stats of resumes you're passing out, you did so because you thought that you could come here and take space to try to get a job.
We need male allies.
We need men who want to celebrate women, who want to work with and for women.
And so we welcome men in this space, but to learn, and support, and improve.
Let's pause it.
Needless to say, I am, well first of all, I am deeply inspired by what these heroic non-binary men have done, breaking down barriers, crashing through glass ceilings, and And to see the bigotry that they encountered to be called out from the stage, and when I think about how deeply otherizing and marginalizing it must have been for them, it just makes me furious.
It makes me furious to see that.
And listen, you know, they have the leftover of a barrel on this one.
There's really nothing you can say.
You invented this non-binary idea.
You intentionally made it incoherent, ambiguous, totally impossible to define, arbitrary.
You're the ones who declared that being non-binary or being trans carries with it no standards or requirements of any kind.
You certainly can't make determinations about who someone is and what their identity is just by looking at them, you said.
If you say that you're non-binary, then you are, and that's it.
What does it mean to be non-binary?
Like, to look at someone and say, well, I don't think they're really non-binary.
What do you mean, really non-binary?
It literally is nothing.
It's just a phrase that you use.
That's the rule that you set up.
So it makes no sense for you to sit there and say that these men aren't non-binary or aren't presenting themselves as non-binary.
That's my favorite thing about this, is that they're getting blamed for not presenting.
What do you mean presenting yourself?
And you have no right to say that.
Like, according to you, according to you, you have no right to tell anyone that they are or are not non-binary.
How dare you?
How dare you?
I say again, how dare you marginalize These non-binary Americans who are trying to get jobs in tech.
Let me ask you this.
How many tech CEOs are non-binary?
I mean, there's probably a lot at this point, to be fair.
But, you know, not enough.
Not nearly enough.
And so these brave souls show up to this conference living their truth For many of them, you know what?
It probably is the first time that they lived their truth openly.
You couldn't find a searchable history of them being non-binary?
You know what?
It probably is true.
All of these former men, all together, decided in that moment that they were going to announce themselves to the world in their true non-binary form at a career conference.
Think about the courage that required.
And they do that, and then this is the response they get from these bigoted liberal women.
I am shocked.
I am appalled.
But all I can say to these men is, or former men, or whatever they want to be called, you
Here's the thing.
It's possible that they still identify as men, that they still go by he-him pronouns, They still dress like men.
Everything is the same.
Everything is the same.
And yet they are also non-binary.
That's valid.
So to these men, if that's what they identify as, I can only just extend my heartfelt admiration.
And I also very much encourage other men who randomly identify as non-binary to invade Any conference, you know, like this, giving the left a chance to, you know, experience the full implications of their own ideology.
I think it's a good opportunity.
It's an opportunity for them to experience.
And you know something, too?
Many of these women at this conference, for the first time in years, they suddenly discovered what the word woman means.
So maybe that is the great service that these men, or former men, provided to these women.
Just by showing up, by simply showing up, all of these liberal women in tech, all together, discovered what the word woman means.
Very brave, very brave.
Okay, NBC News, speaking of brave, they've been doing a series of reports about slavery Which, I'm not sure if you ever heard about slavery, but that was a thing that happened in this country a long time ago, and NBC News has decided that now's the time that they really need to do a deep dive exploration of slavery, and who is descended from slaves, and who's descended from slave owners.
And their most recent report on this topic has gotten a lot of attention, most of it negative.
Let's watch some of this.
We have a follow-up tonight to a story we first brought you over the summer.
In June, Reuters revealed that many of America's political leaders are descended from slaveholders.
Tonight, Blaine Alexander brings us more with a woman stunned to learn the history one of those lawmakers has with her own family.
In the sprawling fields of rural Tennessee, where thousands of black Americans were once enslaved, Lucretia Johnson Flash feels living history.
My people are buried here.
As head of diversity and inclusion at a college, she has spent years working against slavery's lasting impact.
Today, a typical white family in the U.S.
is eight times wealthier than a typical black family.
The dynamics are still very much present with us.
A recent investigation by Reuters found five living U.S.
presidents and at least 100 members of the last Congress are all direct descendants of slaveholders.
What does that say to you about the legacy of slavery in this country?
He says that power is passed down intergenerationally.
It's not to demonize anyone for the past, but things get passed down.
Through the Reuters investigation, Lucretia discovered her ancestors were enslaved by families whose direct descendant is Republican Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky.
NBC News made repeated attempts to speak with the Congressman.
He did not respond.
Okay, pause for a second.
NBC News made repeated attempts to talk to the congressman about a distant relative who lived 200 years ago and owned slaves.
And shockingly, this congressman didn't think that was an urgent matter that needed to be addressed.
I don't know anything about this guy, this congressman.
But I can imagine that even for politicians, they've got plenty of other things going on in their lives that are more important than that.
And I also think it's, just to rewind, we'll watch a little bit more of this for whatever reason, but just to rewind a little bit, you know, we're being told that, well, why is this important?
Why do we need to still be talking about slavery 150, 200 years later?
You know, something that happened, an evil from centuries ago, why do we need to talk about it now?
And she says it's because of power, power being passed down through the generations, which even if that is true, Right, even if it's true that you can look at some people today, and where they are today, and trace it back to slavery, and if you were to rewind the clock, and if their ancestors were never enslaved, they'd be in a different position.
As I've talked about before, that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be in a better position, but yeah, if you were to change anything that far back in the past, it's going to change where you are today.
It also might mean that you don't even exist today, as we've discussed.
But fine, accounting for all of that, and even if it's true that someone, and there's no way to know this, but you take this woman in particular, descendant of slaves from generations and generations ago, if it's true that somehow her life today is worse Then it would have been, had her ancestors never been enslaved.
If it's true that she somehow, in some way, is suffering some kind of disadvantage that she would not have suffered had her ancestors never been enslaved.
There's no way to know that.
There's no way to declare that.
You can't possibly say that that's true.
But just for the sake of argument, let's accept it.
You still have the question of how does it benefit you or anyone to dwell on that fact today?
You go back, you know, if things were different 150 years ago, my life would be better.
That's an insane statement, you can't possibly know that.
But okay, maybe it's true.
Okay.
Well, just, alright.
The most we can do with a statement like that is say, okay.
Okay, alright, now let's move on.
We can't do anything about it.
We can't do anything about it.
It already happened a long time ago, and it stopped happening a long time ago.
We can do absolutely nothing about it now.
So the only thing that you can do is live your life and move forward, or sit around in a state of paralysis, whining about forms of persecution that you never even suffered.
I think it's funny they put up on the screen there the wealth, what was it, the wealth gap between, you know, white Americans and black Americans.
You know, but they only show white Americans and black Americans.
You know, they don't, it's sort of conspicuous that they don't put other Other groups up there, because if they were, if they were to do that, they would say, yeah, well, white Americans on average are this much wealthier than black Americans on average.
But you know who's at the top of that financial socioeconomic pecking order?
Asians.
The Asian Americans are at the very top.
If everything's explained by the legacy of slavery, how does that fit in?
And they always leave the Asians out of the conversation because it doesn't work.
It doesn't fit in with their equation.
Especially when you consider that Asians also have a claim to forms of historical persecution.
There were Asians, much more recently than slavery era, getting rounded up in internment camps.
And yet they are, as a group, succeeding enormously And succeeding even more than white Americans are.
And why is that?
Well, it's very simple.
Because their divorce rates are relatively low.
Their out-of-wedlock birth rate is relatively low.
I'll say comparatively low.
These rates are comparatively low.
And their families stick together, for the most part, and they value education.
That's it.
I mean, there are other things too, but that's pretty much it.
They get married, then they have babies, they stay married, and they make sure that their kids get educated.
That's it.
That is the whole equation, right?
As a demographic group, if you want your demographic group to be collectively successful and to climb the ladder, that's how you do it.
That's it.
Wait till you're married to have babies, stay married once you have babies, and make sure your kids get educated.
That's it.
If you do that, you're going to succeed collectively.
If you don't do that, you're going to fail.
And there's no reason why a history of slavery 150, 200 years ago would prevent you today.
Oh, my ancestors were enslaved in the year 1847, so therefore I have to make babies out of wedlock and not get married and, you know, what?
My ancestors were enslaved in 1847, so therefore I have to make self-destructive decisions today?
That's your choice.
It's very simple.
The path to collective success is, it turns out, very, very simple.
Okay, one other brief thing I want to mention before we get to the next segment.
Here's a story from the New York Post that has also gotten some attention.
This week.
New research out of the US and London shows that shouting at children can be just as harmful to them as sexual or physical abuse.
The study commissioned by the UK charity Words Matter was published this month in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect.
It calls for childhood verbal abuse, CVA, to be officially recognized as a form of maltreatment.
In making this determination, researchers from Wingate University in North Carolina and University College London analyzed 149 quantitative and 17 qualitative studies examining CVA.
Study authors found that the definitional themes of abuse included negative speech volume, tone, and speech content, and their immediate impact.
And so this is what these psychologists and sociologists, this is Who really have been just, this whole industry has been an absolute blight on mankind.
And here's yet another example where these geniuses are telling us that using a negative speech tone.
What's a negative speech tone?
It's, you know, being stern.
Being stern with your child.
Like, speaking to your child in a way that communicates that you are upset about something.
Negative speech tone.
So they're not even just talking about full on, top of your lungs, screaming at a kid right in their face.
I think most people acknowledge that that is overboard.
They're not just saying that.
They're saying a negative tone.
And not only are they claiming that this is a form of abuse, but that it has the same effect on a child as being molested, is what they're saying.
I can only imagine, like, the only reason why you would make an insane claim like this is if you are trying to minimize, greatly minimize, the harm and evil of child sexual abuse.
That is all that they are, if they're accomplishing anything here, that is it.
Whether that's the underlying motivation, I have no idea with these people.
But that's the effect.
And we find this across the cultures.
This sort of leveling out of everything.
And taking all forms of evil.
And even things that are not evil.
Using a negative speech tone with a child is not evil.
But taking all negative things and just putting them in the same basket.
As if there are no gradations.
As if there are no degrees to this.
And so now they're at the point of claiming that, yeah, a negative speech tone results in the same trauma as molesting a child, which, I mean, I don't think I need to explain why that is.
If you don't intuitively recognize why that is completely crazy, then there's probably nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise.
But I think most people intuitively recognize that.
But you know, even putting aside, so the comparison to child molestation is just absolutely nuts.
If we were to somehow carve that out and put that to the side for a moment, you know, the rest of this is in line with stuff that we've heard before, and this increasingly sort of like common claim about parenting.
This is what the parenting experts say now.
The so-called psychological experts, this is what they tell us.
That yelling at a kid is abusive, you never want to do that.
Using negative tones with a child is abusive, never want to do that.
Of course, they've long ago said that any form of spanking whatsoever, in any context, always abusive.
They even say now that time out, putting a kid in a time out, is abusive too.
Which, if you've already accepted everything else they've said, that kind of makes sense.
Like, if you can't even use a negative tone with a child, then yeah, putting them in a timeout is like a form of false imprisonment.
It's like kidnapping or something.
And you see all this, and you might start to think, like, well, what form of discipline can I use now?
If a child is misbehaving, how am I supposed to convey that to the child?
Um, how do you instill any form of discipline whatsoever?
As these people, as the experts have come along one by one, it started with spanking.
And then just one by one, everything that a parent might do, everything that a normal parent might do to try to discipline their child and to try to communicate to a child that certain behavior is unacceptable, it's dangerous, it's disrespectful, whatever it is, they've got one by one, the experts have come along and said, nope, can't do that, nope, not that, nope, not that, not that, not that, not that.
And then you're left with, okay, what's left?
How am I supposed to instill any kind of discipline?
And the answer is, for these so-called experts, the answer is nothing.
They don't want you to discipline your child.
They don't want you to parent your child, is the point.
For these experts, they don't want you to do anything.
They just want you to be a lump on a log, and your only function is just to be there, provide the roof over the head, give them food.
And even like the type of food, they'll tell you what type.
That's all you're there, and all the rest of it, the moral formation, any kind of, whatever form of disciplining, leave that up to them.
They'll do the rest.
That's what they want.
And you know, I worry about this for, because for someone like, it doesn't matter to me, I just ignore these people.
But I think for a lot of younger people, for young parents, new parents, younger people who are not parents yet, and they see all of this, and it just makes, especially for young people who are not parents yet, they see this and it dissuades them from ever becoming parents.
Because they look at this and they say, oh my gosh, no matter what I do, I'm going to destroy my child.
Anything I do, apparently, is going to traumatize my kid.
If I use the wrong tone, When I'm disciplining them, it will cause potentially lifelong trauma.
And I think a lot of younger people say that and say, I can't do it.
I can't.
I don't know.
Apparently, you have to be some sort of highly trained genius to parent.
And you know what?
That is also the objective, too.
Ultimately, that's the real objective, is to communicate to people that, you know what?
Parenting?
Don't even do it.
Don't even try.
That's what they're getting to.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
[MUSIC]
Well, it's fall, which means cozy nights in with my family.
Thanks to my friends at Tommy John, my loungewear for a night in has the perfect blend of comfort and breathability.
Their loungewear has a level of softness like I've never felt before.
Their incredibly soft loungewear is designed to envelop you in a world of pure luxury.
When you wear Tommy John, you're so much more comfortable that you can do everything better.
Even their underwear has dozens of comfort innovations like breathable, lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric with four times the stretch of competing brands that can keep you seven degrees cooler
than cotton.
Every purchase is backed by Tommy John's Best Perial Everywhere or its free guarantee.
You get 20% off your first order right now at TommyJohn.com/Walsh.
That's 20% off at TommyJohn.com/Walsh.
See site for details.
OJ says, "Matt really out here telling people to assume black men are murderers."
Scott McKinney says, Matt Walsh is working hard to move the Overton window on racial stereotyping.
He wants very much for white people to stereotype black men as dangerous and pretends that fear of black people is reasonable and warranted.
This is open and clear racism and race hatred.
Californian in AR says, it's true though.
I've stereotyped you as a stupid bigot.
Therefore, I don't listen to you and live my life without your influence.
It's great.
And FollowMeToTheTruth says, what would you do if you pulled up to a gas station and there were white people wearing hoodies?
What about white people with neck tattoos?
White people with pink or purple hair?
I think the middle-aged black woman was a poor alternative.
You could have made a better alternative case.
Okay.
So I'm going to respond to all these, but let me start with this last comment.
Would I have stopped at the gas station at night with my kids in the car if there were two white guys with neck tattoos hanging weirdly around off to the side, not pumping gas?
No, definitely not.
I wouldn't have.
What if they had hoodies?
I don't know.
It kind of depends.
What if they had pink or purple hair?
I mean, no, I wouldn't worry.
You know, the white person with pink or purple hair, I don't worry for my own safety around those sorts of people.
I wouldn't hire them as babysitters.
That's for sure.
And actually, that's another great example of when a rational person will make stereotypical judgments about people Based mostly on appearance.
If you're hiring somebody to watch your kids, you know, so you can go out on a date night or something with your spouse, you would probably never, should never, hire a man, first of all, of any race, unless this is like a grandpa or someone close to you who you really know and trust.
But I'm talking about you're going out to hire strangers, people often do, and they're hiring babysitters, you're going through with some kind of service or something like that.
You're not going to hire a man, I would hope.
You're not going to hire anybody with exotically dyed hair, probably.
You're only hiring a woman, and you're going to be very particular and judgmental of the woman's appearance and demeanor.
Because this is someone you're leaving your kids with, and you don't have a lot of information about them, ultimately.
And so you've got to make judgment calls based on appearance, and so you might make You might make a judgment call or an assumption or something that ends up being incorrect about that particular person, but it doesn't matter because it's not about them specifically.
It's just about assessing risk levels.
So this is why, again, using the example, you're going through some kind of babysitter service to hire a stranger, and you see some, I don't know, 22-year-old guy is one of the potential babysitters with a profile on the site.
I think you'd be crazy to hire the 22-year-old guy to come watch your kids, the 22-year-old strange man to come watch your kids.
And so if I see that profile, I'm not going to hire that person.
Does that mean, is it like definitely true that that person is a child abuser of some kind?
Of course not.
There's a very good chance that they aren't.
In fact, they almost certainly aren't.
Like it's, you know, just statistically.
But I'm assessing risk.
And the risk level with that man is going to be higher than it is for a random woman.
Now, does race factor into the kind of judgment calls we make when we're assessing risk and when we have no other information?
Well, yeah, because it's something we observe, it's part of the overall picture, and so when you're looking at someone, you're taking everything about them into account.
Most of this happens very quickly.
It's unconscious, or at least it's instinctive, it's gut level, and you see someone and you're taking everything about them.
You notice everything about them and it all kind of filters through the risk assessing process.
So, if you're walking alone at night and you see a young black male up ahead standing on a street corner, you are going to be more wary than if you see a middle-aged white woman in yoga pants jogging by.
Okay?
And that's because middle-aged white women are responsible for basically none of the violent crime in the country.
Basically none.
Like, there's probably never been a case in history where a person was mugged on a street corner by, you know, a middle-aged, by a 37-year-old white woman.
It's probably never happened.
And I know someone's going to go on Google and find the one case.
Back in 1987, there was a 37-year-old woman named Kelly who became a gang leader in Detroit.
You might be able to find the right, but cases like that are totally anomalous.
It basically never happens.
It's not a concern that enters your head.
On the other hand, young black males are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of violent crime.
A young black male Is a lot more likely to mug you and rob you than a middle-aged white female or really anyone of any other demographic group.
That's just a fact.
It just is.
It's just a simple statistical reality.
And there's no—you can deny it.
This is what we do.
We deny things that we—every person who denies it knows—we all know, so we're all talking to each other.
And there are people in the conversation denying things, even though we're looking at each other, you and I both know that what you're denying is actually true.
So we all know that.
And in these kinds of situations, your level of wariness, if you're a rational person, is going to fluctuate depending on the level of actual risk.
It also factors, again, context matters.
Okay?
Young black male in a hoodie standing on a street corner at night alone.
You're going to assess that differently than if you see a black male walking by you in a suit.
You know, it's all of these things you're taking into account.
And you have a gut level assessment of it.
And again, we all know that's true.
Some of these commenters and others are pretending, you know, they're pretending that if they saw a young black male and a white woman, that they would have, that there would be equal levels of concern, or that there should be.
But if you're making that claim, you're either lying, you are just lying, and we all know you're lying, or you are suicidally naive and stupid, And there's a good chance you will end up like Ryan Carson dead on a sidewalk somewhere.
So those are the two options.
I think the better option is just for us all to acknowledge reality.
Because it is what it is.
It doesn't make any sense to be upset about it.
It just is.
It's no secret that we are all loving the GenuCell Dark Spot Corrector here.
It's making everyone around me have faces I can stand to look at just barely.
You might be asking, what does this product even do?
Well, if you have sun spots, dark spots, discoloration, dry skin, whatever it is, the GenuCell Dark Spot Corrector will help these blemishes disappear in front of your very eyes.
Kimberly from Youngstown, Ohio.
I was just talking to her, and she said, My appearance has improved so much since using GenuCell in my face.
I love all my GenuCell products, and my skin looks younger.
Now, it's your turn to feel like Kimberly, but this sale is ending very soon, so you've got to take advantage now of GenuCell's most popular package, which includes the Dark Spot Corrector.
This package also includes the classic GenuCell bags and puffiness treatment for immediate effects.
You'll get all those products for almost 70% off.
GenuCell is so confident in their products that you can try them for yourself completely risk-free.
If you don't see results in one day, we'll get your money back.
It's simple, go to genucell.com/walsh and start looking years, even decades younger.
Say hello to the best skin you've ever had at genucell.com/walsh.
That's genucell.com/walsh.
Also, who doesn't love a good Columbus Day sale?
Well, you know, some folks these days, they don't even want you to celebrate Columbus Day,
but at Jeremy's Razors, we want you to discover the new world of woke-free shaving.
Get 20% off.
Select Jeremy's Razors products and bundles, including the Precision 5 Starter Kit, the Founder's Kit, the Beard Kit, the Skin Care Bundle, and more.
Be a pioneer for a better shave and better hygiene.
Don't wait.
Make the switch today.
Get yours at jeremysrazors.com.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation we turn to the actress Kerry Washington, who has published
an excerpt from her upcoming memoir in Time Magazine.
And as you've noticed, the bar for memoirs has been severely lowered in recent years.
It used to be that there were two basic requirements for writing a memoir.
First, you have to have led an incredibly interesting life to write a memoir.
And second, you have to be a great writer.
Memoirs are things that exist for fascinating writers who've lived fascinating lives.
And there are very few people who fall into either category, and fewer still who fall into both categories.
That's the point.
It's a very rare person who is worthy of a memoir.
But that's all changed.
And, in fact, it's been flipped completely on its head.
And now, in most cases, memoirs are written only by the worst writers who have lived the most boring lives.
They're written by someone like Kerry Washington, a run-of-the-mill actress who starred in a bunch of mediocre network TV shows.
How can she justify a memoir?
What can she possibly have to say about her life that's worthy of a memoir?
What important experiences has she had?
Well, in her Time magazine piece, she tells us about one.
She had an abortion.
So she may not have done anything interesting or incredibly instructive with her life.
or constructive, but she did kill her baby.
And that story really needs to be told, she thinks.
So reading out says, "In my late 20s, I made the difficult, very private
decision to have an abortion.
About a decade later, I played a character that was the first woman to be shown
undergoing an abortion procedure on network television.
As women, it is our right to choose what happens to our bodies, our lives, and our futures."
It's also up to us to decide when, how, and with whom we share our stories.
The reality is that abortion is a very real and normal part of women's lives.
I share the story of my abortion procedure here because our right to make choices about our bodies and our lives is under attack, both culturally and legislatively.
This is my story.
I am one of many, and we will not be silenced.
Now, one thing You noticed about liberal women is that they never shut up, but they're always claiming that they're being silenced, especially when it comes to their abortion stories.
Every time a woman like this comes out with the saga of her abortion, she always has this elaborate, melodramatic windup where she insists that it's finally time for women to talk about their abortions, except that women have been talking about their abortions For decades, okay?
We've heard this story over and over and over again.
In fact, before we read any more of Kerry Washington's personal and private abortion story, we already know everything it will say.
Because it's always the same script.
That's because evil is not very innovative.
It tends to repeat itself.
Right, it's the banality of evil, which is why every woman who has ever bragged about killing her child has sounded exactly like every other woman who has bragged about killing her child.
So, we don't need to keep reading, but we will.
Continuing, it was January in New York City.
I'll never forget how cold it was that morning.
I was grateful for the need of additional layers, not only to keep me warm, but also to hide and cocoon myself away from the reality of the procedure I was about to undergo.
Let's stop there for a moment.
Kerry, you say you wanted to hide from the reality of the procedure you were about to undergo.
Why?
Why would you need to hide from the reality of the procedure?
If abortion is a legitimate medical procedure, and if it's not, in fact, the murder of a human child, then why do you need to hide from its reality?
You know, if I were to ever write a memoir about my experience getting surgery on my torn Achilles in 2019, which would at least be as interesting as your memoir, I would never say that I wanted to hide from the reality of the procedure.
I would never open it like that.
It was cold outside.
It was dark.
Cocooned myself from the reality of my Achilles procedure.
I would never say that.
Now, I may have gotten a little nervous about getting surgery in general, but there was nothing about the reality of the procedure that I found upsetting or distressing.
The reality is that they were going to fix something that was broken.
It's a good thing.
I was happy they were doing it, ultimately.
You were not happy.
You were hiding from the reality.
Why?
What is it about abortion that made you want to hide?
If you actually were to explore that question in an honest and introspective way, then your abortion story might have a chance to be the first of its kind to have any value whatsoever.
But of course you don't explore that question.
You just, you say, I wanted to hide from the reality.
Never explaining why.
What is it about the reality that you want to hide from?
What's so upsetting about it?
Never explained, skip right over it, and we move on to this.
Continuing, I sat in the waiting room and completed the paperwork with false information.
A made-up name, a pretend address, a non-existent email.
Only the phone number was my own, should the office need to reach me in case of an emergency.
Let me stop there again.
In what other context can you go in for a surgical procedure and get away with providing completely false information?
They never asked for your ID?
They never verified anything about your identity?
They never even verified your age?
So we're constantly told about the invisible hurdles that women have to jump over to obtain abortions, but this makes it clear that the hurdles are significantly lower than they are for any actually legitimate medical procedure.
Moving on, it says, When the nurse called my false name, I followed her into a small office.
She proceeded to ask me questions that she was required to ask by the state to help me make sure that this was the right choice for me and my family.
My body felt hot with shame.
As a teen, I performed with a health education theater company, and I had spent years on the other side of a version of that conversation asking young people to consider their options and weigh the consequences.
I was schooled, and schooled others, in the ways of prevention and the language of sexual empowerment.
But in my own life, I had committed the crime that seemed unimaginable to me back then.
I had let the heat of the moment dictate choices that would impact me for a lifetime.
Why hadn't I protected myself?
Why hadn't I the courage to create boundaries around my womb?
Why had I silenced my preferences in the name of people pleasing?
This all could have been avoided.
If I had spoken up for myself in that moment, I wouldn't have found myself in that office.
But there I was, surrendering my insides to a surgical vacuum, trying to repair the damage born of my silence and need to be loved.
Few points here.
First of all, for anyone listening to this, you may have experienced challenges in your life.
You may have suffered in many ways.
But look on the bright side.
At least you were never subjected to performances by Kerry Washington's Health Education Theater Company.
So however bad you think it may be in your life, it could be worse.
There are people, apparently, years ago, who were sitting in audiences watching a health education theater company starring Kerry Washington.
Second, notice the passive tone that Kerry adopts here.
She chose to have sex outside of marriage at a time when she felt she was unprepared to have children, and it led to predictable results.
In fact, her sexual experience Had the same result that literally billions and billions of other sexual experiences have had.
A man and a woman had sex and they made a baby.
It is a story as old as humanity itself.
It has played out tens of billions of times across the world and through history.
Yet Kerry Washington presents herself as perplexed.
I had sex with a man.
I became pregnant.
How could this have happened?
How could this have happened?
Well, I could tell you how it happened.
I mean, you're the one who was in a health education theater company, I think you should probably know.
But it's not really her fault, she informs us.
She was just people-pleasing by having sex with the guy.
She did it for his sake, really.
Her only mistake was not establishing boundaries.
Which is a not-so-subtle way of essentially putting all the blame on the man.
Because she only had sex for his sake.
This was about pleasing him.
He was crossing boundaries.
The sex was something that was happening to her.
And if she's to blame for anything, it's for not speaking up for herself.
Right.
Reading a little more, she says, Later, as I lay on the medical bed with my feet in stirrups, the doctor described her plans for the termination, the instruments she would be using, and what it might feel like at different stages along the way.
I had been to several gynecological appointments through the years, but never one so transactional.
Today, I had come to this office for a particular result and required a definitive outcome.
When I left, I would be a changed woman, without the burden of new life, but perhaps with a bit more time to understand and define my own.
As the doctor opened my cervix and inserted the thin vacuum tube, the nurse looked down at me, smiled, and very gently said, Do you know who you look like?
I think she was trying to comfort me to tell me that even though this moment was incredibly difficult, she could see the beauty in me, could see that I reminded her of a movie star.
She said my real name.
I could hear it under the muffled sound of the water in which I was drowning.
Kerry Washington.
It was my name.
But the version she was calling out had nothing to do with me.
And so, in that moment, I didn't know who I was.
Okay.
We've probably read enough at this point.
Two other quick points, though.
First, as predicted, the writing here is just absolutely atrocious.
I could hear it under the muffled sound of the water in which I was drowning.
Never mind that, again, abortion is supposedly a legitimate and positive medical procedure, and yet she compares it to drowning.
You would never describe any other medical procedure that way.
But that aside, this is just tremendously awful writing.
She is laboring to make the whole experience sound profound and poetic and beautiful, but she finds herself hamstrung by the fact that she is a shallow, midwit actress who has never had a profound thought in her entire life.
And the result is a sentence like, I could hear it under the muffled sound of the water in which I was drowning, which is equal parts clunky and clichéd.
It sounds like something you'd read in a 10th grader's creative writing assignment.
And by the way, This is a pet peeve, but okay, you can actually end a sentence with a preposition.
Nobody in real life would ever say the phrase, the water in which I was drowning.
You didn't rescue me from the water in which I was drowning.
You would just say, the water I was drowning in.
That's what you would say.
Now, your public school teacher told you that there's some ironclad grammar rule forbidding you from ever ending a sentence with a preposition, but that was just one of the many things your public school teacher lied to you about, okay?
You could end a sentence with a preposition.
If you see someone with earbuds in, you don't have to ask them, to what music are you listening?
What are you listening to?
You don't have to speak like Yoda, okay?
That's not the correct grammar.
That's incorrect grammar.
Anyway.
More importantly, we have this sentence, where she says, And that's the whole story right there.
without the burden of new life, but perhaps with a bit more time to understand and define my own.
And that's the whole story right there. I mean, that's the part that really matters.
Because this is what abortion is in the vast majority of instances.
Kerry Washington was not a poor, desperate woman getting an abortion because she felt she had no choice.
Now, it still would not have been justified even in that case, but that is not the case here.
She simply just didn't want to deal with a baby.
She didn't feel like having a baby, so she's killing it.
She even acknowledges that the life in her womb is in fact life, but it's a life that burdens her, inconveniences her, interferes with her lifestyle.
Is she killing her child so that she doesn't end up homeless or, you know, starve to death?
Which still would not be a justified reason for killing your child because nothing could ever justify killing a child.
Nothing.
But no, that's not even why she's doing it.
In her words, she just wants to have more time to understand and define her own life.
So she is willfully and admittedly destroying human life for the most frivolous reason imaginable.
She's killing her own child, and all that she can offer to defend that decision is some meaningless self-actualization jargon.
In other words, she is simply a terrible human being.
That's the real moral of the story.
It's the one thing we learn from her otherwise pointless and dull memoir.
