Ep. 1238 - Deranged Leftists Celebrate Rape And Murder In The Name Of ‘Decolonization’
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, war has erupted in the Middle East. The Biden Administration has failed once again. Leftists are cheering the rape and murder of innocent civilians. We will try to make sense of all of this today. Also, the UN is focused on other things today. Like protecting the rights of "trans lesbians." And today is Columbus Day, which the Left has tried to replace with Indigenous People Day. I will explain why Columbus is a great man who deserves to be celebrated and why Indigenous People Day is a laughable disgrace.
Ep.1238
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
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:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
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, war has erupted in the Middle East.
The Biden administration has failed once again.
Leftists are cheering the rape and murder of innocent civilians.
We will try to make sense of all of this today.
Also, the UN is focused on other things today somehow, like protecting the rights of quote-unquote trans lesbians.
And today is Columbus Day, which the left has tried to replace with Indigenous People's Day.
I'll explain why Columbus is a great man who deserves to be celebrated and why Indigenous People's Day is a laughable disgrace.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
The G20 or Group of 20 is an international forum for governments and central bank governors.
It was established in response to the financial crisis of the late 1990s with the aim of promoting international financial stability.
Last month, the G20 announced a plan to impose digital currencies and digital IDs on their respective populations.
Central bank digital currencies essentially allow the government to track every purchase you make.
Even if you don't follow international economic policies that closely, you should be concerned
about this and you should consider diversifying at least some of your assets into physical
gold with the help of Birch Gold Group.
Call Birch Gold today to preserve your savings in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
If you have an IRA or 401(k) from a previous employer that's just gathering dust, well,
call Birch Gold and they will help you convert it into an IRA in gold.
You won't pay a penny out of pocket.
They simply convert that 401(k) that's just sitting in a bank somewhere into physical
gold, which can't be tampered with.
to 989-898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
If digital currency becomes a reality, you'll be glad you have something physical to fall back on.
Text WALSH to 989898 and claim your free info kit on gold today.
Less than two weeks ago, Joe Biden's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan spoke at an event called the Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C.
Now, if you're not familiar with the Atlantic Festival, there's a reason for that.
This is an exclusive event that's intended only for the preeminent thought leaders in the United States.
At the Atlantic Festival, only those with, quote, complex ideas are invited to give speeches and attend the happy hours and all the rest of it.
And Jake Sullivan, who went to Yale Law School and won a Rhodes Scholarship, and who now oversees the entire national security apparatus of the United States government, certainly met that very high bar.
So, what wisdom did Jake Sullivan bestow on his listeners at the Atlantic Festival just a week and a half ago?
What insight did he share?
Thankfully for us plebes the footage of his remarks have been uploaded to the internet and you know I watch the whole thing so you don't have to.
I want to show you just one snippet that in light of recent events is both highly revealing and very damning to say the least.
Watch.
And what we said is we want to depressurize, de-escalate, and ultimately integrate the Middle East region.
The war in Yemen is in.
It's 19 months of truce.
For now, the Iranian attacks against U.S.
forces have stopped.
Our presence in Iraq is stable.
I emphasize for now because all of that can change.
And the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.
Everything's quiet.
Everything's quiet in the Middle East, according to Joe Biden's top advisor on national security matters.
In fact, they're so quiet that Sullivan implies that he stopped paying much attention to the entire region.
What did he focus on instead?
Well, if you listen to his whole discussion there, you'll learn the answer to that question.
And Sullivan says that he diverted his attention to topics like climate change and January 6th and how Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.
All topics that were silly at the time, a week and a half ago, and seem somehow even sillier today.
Now at this point, there's no need to go into great detail about the events of this weekend, which reveal how horribly wrong Sullivan's assessment was and how totally incompetent he is.
I'm not going to recount all the violence and horror that unfolded in Israel over the weekend.
You know what happened by now, I'm sure.
Hamas invaded Israel.
They killed hundreds, probably thousands of Israelis.
They raped women next to the corpses of their dead friends.
They executed the elderly at bus stops.
I don't need to go into detail because the footage, which is unbelievably horrific, is on social media for anyone to see and millions of people have seen it.
And so there's no dispute about anything that happened.
We all know exactly what happened.
There's also no dispute, at least not anymore, that the so-called experts in the foreign policy establishment of the U.S.
government have no clue what they're doing.
The people we pay to figure out what's happening overseas, the Rhodes Scholars like Jake Sullivan, are in fact completely and totally inept.
They have no idea what they're talking about.
They also don't seem to care, by the way.
As American citizens were being held hostage by Hamas, Joe Biden held a barbecue in the Rose Garden for White House staff.
There was a live band and everything.
They had a great time.
They partied, they ate ribs, while the Middle East descended into anarchy.
Which actually, come to think of it, is not a very shocking response.
I mean, Biden has, after all, taken dozens of vacations all throughout his tenure as president, while our own country falls apart.
So this is how he responds to situations in our country and abroad.
However you assess the geopolitical situation, the unavoidable conclusion of the past few days is that the Biden
administration has been a complete and historic failure in every measurable respect.
Our economy is stagnant. Our borders are in a constant state of chaos.
Our cities are overrun with criminals out on bail.
We now have two major wars that have broken out under Joe Biden's watch.
Biden's top men didn't see either one of those wars coming.
They got all the Rhodes Scholars, all the Ivy League geniuses together.
They didn't see either one of those things coming.
And they clearly had no idea how to respond to either one.
With the war in Ukraine, Joe Biden dispatched Kamala Harris to reduce tensions just before war broke out.
He promised to bankrupt Russia with sanctions, which only push Russia towards more lucrative deals with China.
Nearly two years later, with the war in Israel, Jake Sullivan was busy chatting up the Atlantic Festival about how peaceful and quiet the region was.
And now they're cooking hamburgers.
I mean, these people are worse than malevolent.
They are malevolent and stupid, which is a radioactive combination.
Now, you could rightly point out that it's not America's job to watch Israel's border, especially when we aren't even watching our own borders.
We're not the world's policemen, as much as neocons want us to be.
But at the same time, the full-scale invasion of an ally seems kind of like something our intelligence agencies should have known about in advance.
You know, we pay these agencies a lot of money, a lot of tax money, billions and billions of dollars.
And so you'd think they'd be using it to find out about things like this before they happen.
We're talking about a highly militarized, highly surveilled border, which was infiltrated seemingly without any resistance whatsoever.
I mean, how could anything like that happen?
It's possible that if our intelligence agencies weren't so busy monitoring angry mothers at school board meetings and obsessing over carbon emissions in the United States, then they would have had time and, you know, more time and energy to discover stuff like this before it happens.
And that's assuming that they didn't know about this before it happened, of course.
But that may not be an entirely safe assumption.
You know, there's more than enough reason to think that the U.S.
government indirectly, if unintentionally, perhaps, assisted the militants who attacked Israel over the weekend.
The Wall Street Journal just reported that Iran helped to plot the attack and gave it the green light.
And it just so happens that, coincidentally enough, the Biden administration also recently unfroze $6 billion that Iran has access to.
And that raises a pretty obvious question, which is, could that money have contributed to this weekend's attack in any way?
Now, if you were watching Fox News the other day, you heard the Pentagon's response via one of their many stenographers who masquerade as journalists.
Watch.
I think you have to push back on some of the statements in that statement from former President Trump.
It is an exaggeration to suggest that there is any evidence that any of the money that
was released as part of that hostage deal, a lot of that money was tied up in goods.
What I would say is that Iran has been funding Hamas across four presidents.
So you just heard Jennifer Griffin, Fox's senior national security correspondent, explaining that there's no way that the $6 billion we just unfroze for Iran had anything to do with this weekend's attacks.
Coincidentally enough, at the same time Griffin was saying that, the Biden administration was pushing the same exact talking points on social media.
Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said, quote, not a single cent from these funds has been spent, and when it is spent, it could only be spent on things like food and medicine for the Iranian people.
Now, what's interesting about that explanation, aside from what it reveals about how the corporate media is just a mouthpiece for the government, is that it doesn't even begin to make sense.
I mean, let's just assume, let's assume that what they're saying is true.
Let's assume that we gifted Iran $6 billion in unfrozen assets, but we told them that they could only use it on food and medicine.
And then let's assume, there's a lot of assumptions here that probably are totally unjustified, Then let's assume that Iran played by those rules and, you know, scouts honor and all that, and they refuse to spend any of that money on anything resembling a terrorist attack in Israel.
Even if all that is true, it doesn't follow that the money had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, as the Pentagon and corporate media are claiming.
You don't have to be an economist to understand that money is fungible.
If you give someone $6 billion that they weren't expecting to have, and then, you know, what that's going to do is that's going to free up $6 billion in their budget for other activities that they might choose to engage in.
So this is the, if it sounds familiar, this is the same game the media plays when it claims that the half a billion dollars in tax money we send to Planned Parenthood every year doesn't fund abortions.
Now it might not, but it frees up the money that does, which is exactly the same thing.
Like, if you get money from this source and money from that source, and then you spend it on this, it makes no difference what pot you're pulling from.
It's all the same money.
Because money is fungible.
This point then, what's needed is a comprehensive, impartial investigation into why we just unfroze $6 billion in assets for Iran and whether that decision allowed Iran to bankroll an invasion of Israel.
But there's no chance any investigation like that will ever occur because Iran isn't a mother, you know, at a school board meeting complaining about pornography in the school library.
Therefore, this will get buried, even though there's a lot of evidence that the U.S.
government has indirectly, and we hope, inadvertently, helped support what happened this weekend in Israel.
Whatever the national security establishment and their servants in the media tell you, this whole thing is either a massive intelligence and logistics failure by the Biden administration, or something much more sinister.
The Pentagon and their lackeys in corporate media, they could try to run interference, they can do whatever they want to try to change the subject, but those are the two possibilities we're dealing with and there really is no third option.
As horrible as that is to contemplate, There is still, actually, an even bigger story here, bigger than the actions of the U.S.
government to enrich terrorists and the many enemies of civilization that have become entrenched in the Middle East.
The political dimension is just one part of this catastrophe.
There's a deeper problem that we can't fix, even by firing Jake Sullivan and ousting Joe Biden.
There's the domestic cultural problem, which is far more ingrained than the political one.
Now go on social media and take a look at the left's response to what's happening right now in Israel.
They're putting out statements that explicitly endorse Hamas's efforts to decolonize the region by murdering and raping women and children.
In Washington, D.C., activists are praising Hamas, along with Mao, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, but it's all in the name of equity and justice and decolonization and all the rest of it.
Listen.
A great revolutionary once said, though, Mao Zedong, If you have not investigated, you have no right to speak.
And that goes out to all these liberal entities, to the Miami Heat, to Bernie Sanders, to whoever else that is not recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to be free.
No investigation, no right to speak.
If you don't know about the Balfour Declaration in 1917, She's an expert while she's reading stuff from her phone that she just looked up on Google.
If you don't know about this stuff that I just googled, then you have no right to speak.
Now, scenes like this played out throughout this country and in Canada, so here's just a sampling of the response from pro-Hamas activists in Florida, New York, Washington State, Montreal, and Toronto.
Watch.
Less than 24 hours ago on the land, from the sea, and from the air, the people of the Gaza Strip...
[crowd cheering]
[crowd chanting]
...placid!
[crowd chanting]
Palestine will be free!
[crowd chanting]
Palestine will be free!
Free, free Palestine!
Free, free Palestine!
Down, down Israel!
Free Palestine.
Really free Palestine.
Free, free Palestine.
Down, down Israel.
Allahu Akbar.
Now, what we have to remember is that these rallies took place after everybody involved
knew what actually happened in Israel.
All of these protesters knew exactly what they were protesting for.
They all saw the videos of, for example, you know, a naked woman in the back of a pickup truck whose body is mangled and brutalized being paraded as a trophy through the streets.
So they all saw that.
They all saw that.
And that's what they're celebrating.
I mean, that specifically is what they're celebrating.
So what explains this?
It's tempting to point to changing demographics, and there's some truth to that theory.
The West has imported millions of people from the third world, and in particular from Islamic nations, where Sharia law and extremism is overwhelmingly popular.
But it would be a mistake to blame this problem entirely on demographic changes, as substantial as they've been.
Because the truth is that academics and journalists, many of them native to the West or working for publications based in the West, Have put out statements supporting Hamas and their efforts to decolonize by murdering and raping women and children.
I mean, there's a write-up in the New York Times, ostensibly from their news division, and this is how they portrayed what just happened in Israel over the weekend.
Quote, For some Gazans, Saturday morning's surprise Palestinian attack into southern Israel seemed a justified response to a 16-year Israeli blockade.
Others worried that the coordinated attack would only add to Gaza's misery as the tiny enclave braced for a large-scale response from Israel.
That's how the New York Times covered the slaughter of hundreds of people attending a music festival.
That's how they covered the execution of elderly women at a bus stop.
It's how they reported on the rapes and murders that were caught on camera.
And it goes on.
In a viral tweet, Najma Sharif, who bills herself as a Somali-American writer who works for NBC and other outlets, had this to say about the massacres in Israel this weekend, quote, What did y'all think decolonization meant?
Vibes?
Papers?
Essays?
Losers?
Now, you read something like that, it's tempting to dismiss that as the rantings of one unhinged leftist, and that is indeed one unhinged leftist, but she's far from the only one.
Porn star Maya Khalifa has been hitting all the same notes.
She just reposted an image of Hamas terrorists shooting at police officers in Israel, writing, this is a renaissance painting.
She also appeared to justify the murder of civilians, writing, quote, By the way, none of these leftist porn stars and mouth breathers who are salivating over Hamas would survive a day in Gaza.
I mean, in Gaza, they don't take kindly to sexual deviance, promiscuous women, or homosexuals.
And at some level, all these leftists know that.
That's why they don't live there.
Instead, they post about it from afar.
Here's yet another example.
An editor at Harper's Magazine, which people supposedly used to take seriously, had this assessment.
And try to follow this.
"To search for an analog seems almost inappropriate to Palestinians' world-historical audacity
to seize the components of self-determination for themselves, if only because the idiom
of liberation invents itself anew with each instance that the yoke of bondage is sloughed
off."
Now, what does any of that mean?
Well, it's just a word salad, ultimately designed to justify the mass murder of civilians.
It makes no sense.
It's not supposed to.
It's indecipherable.
It's supposed to be indecipherable.
Part of that is because these people are constantly trying to impress you with their intelligence.
But here's the thing.
If you can't communicate in a way that actually makes sense, then you're a moron.
You are stupid.
One of the most basic markers of intelligence is being able to communicate clearly.
And if you can't do that, and most of these academics can't, it's because you're dumb.
But you've memorized some buzzwords that you think make you sound smart.
That's part of the idea, is just to try to impress us.
But the other idea is to use this indistinguishable language as a way of justifying things that are unjustifiable.
This is the only tactic they have, and this is now the norm on the left.
AOC, Rashid Tlaib, the rest of the squad, they've all put out comments that maybe in some cases are a bit more circumspect in response to the attacks in Israel, but it's still pretty clear where their allegiances lie.
They've suggested that Israel should avoid retaliating, which is obviously insane.
But it does raise the obvious question, which is, why does the American left so routinely side with Hamas, given that Hamas would happily behead all of them?
And the answer is really quite simple.
The American left will always align itself with the less white side.
It's just as simple as that.
That's how they see this struggle.
They see it as whiteness versus oppressed people of color.
Now, that is, to say the least, a convoluted and confused way of looking at this conflict, but it's how they see it.
It's the formula they use for everything, and they're using it here.
And this is actually very important for us to realize because When they explicitly justify violent, savage atrocities in the name of decolonization, they are establishing a precedent that is not contained to the conflict in Israel.
Remember, they consider white Americans to be colonizers, too.
We are responsible for an occupation that has been going on for 500 years, they claim.
So when you hear them cheer for the butchery of the alleged colonizers overseas, you should realize what they're really cheering for.
Remember that they would be more than happy to see us all meet the same fate.
In fact, they're planning on it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
I know I'm saying that all the time.
Every day I say that.
It's my mantra in my house.
Well, you know, 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 focused on 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.
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 wheat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough 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 that could be at your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt.
So, let's begin with this.
We know what the big global story was over the weekend.
The kind of thing that, if you're concerned about global affairs, you might pay attention to.
In fact, if you are, say, an organization specifically formed to concern itself with global affairs, you might pay special attention to it.
If you're an organization like the United Nations, for example.
In fact, a subsidiary organization in the UN is called UN Women.
And their charter is supposedly to focus on gender equality and women's empowerment and things like that.
Well, as mentioned in the opening, we all saw the videos of women being kidnapped, murdered, raped en masse.
Isn't that something that UN Women would really care about and have a lot to say about?
Well, apparently not.
In fact, UN Women has not, believe it or not, said one single word about the kidnap, murder, and rape of women that happened over the weekend.
They haven't said one word about it.
Not one word.
They couldn't even muster up one tweet.
One simple tweet saying, hey, this is bad, don't do that.
Instead, here's what they tweeted.
And this is while everything's going on in the Middle East.
This is what they decided to tweet.
Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too.
Let's uplift and honor every expression of love and identity.
Happy International Lesbian Day.
So, while women, actual women, are being slaughtered, this is what UN Women is thinking about.
They're thinking about men with autogynephilic fetishes.
That's the most important thing to them.
The most important thing in the world right now is defending men who have autogynephilic fetishes.
That's their top concern.
Now, never mind the fact that what they're claiming here is totally absurd and just laughably false and unintelligible.
Trans lesbians are men.
They are men attracted to women.
They are straight men.
They are straight men with a bizarre fetish, but they are straight men.
Men attracted to women.
That makes them straight.
In fact, if trans lesbians are actually lesbians, then the left's whole entire narrative about sexual orientation has been blown apart.
It's been destroyed.
Because a man who is attracted to women and identifies as a man is straight.
We all agree on that.
But if that man becomes a lesbian when he identifies as a woman, that means his orientation has changed.
Right?
He went from straight To gay.
And this is the paradox that the left runs into.
It's one of the many paradoxes created by gender ideology, because gender ideology is so fundamentally nonsensical.
If gender can be changed, then by definition, so can sexual orientation.
If a trans lesbian is a lesbian, then sex orientation can be changed.
It's that simple.
Now they'll try to get around this by saying, well, The man who identifies as a woman was really a woman all along, and so really the whole time he was a lesbian.
You know, even when he was dressed like a man and had a buzz cut and his name was Frank or something, he was a lesbian back then too.
And they can get away with that for a while, but not anymore.
Because they've made gender so fluid that it really is as simple as a man can see himself as a man, identify as a man, he really is.
Because whatever you identify as in the moment, that's what you are.
It's as simple as that.
And so if you wake up one day and say, I identify as a woman now, then you're a woman now.
You weren't yesterday, but you are now.
Because yesterday you identified as something else.
And because they've made it so fluid, that one excuse is gone, and we're left with the reality that sexual orientation, even according to them, can be changed.
But they won't admit it.
They can't admit it.
They're committed to the idea that sexual orientation is hardwired, is ingrained, is inherent.
Now, they believe that sexual orientation is somehow more deeply ingrained than sex itself.
Which makes no sense.
I mean, it's complete gibberish.
But, you know, we can kind of put all that to the side, and I think focus on the fact that this tweet from the UN, UN Women, is not the only reason, and it's certainly not even, it's not even in the top 50.
This is like reason number 10 million why the UN should not exist.
It is, at best, a totally useless organization.
At best, it's like some kind of vestigial organ that can and should be cut out.
That's the best thing you can say about it.
If you're looking for the most generous view of the UN, best thing you could do is say that it's an organization that maybe had some kind of function at some point in the past, but no longer does, and so it's now useless.
At worst, though, the UN is malevolent.
It is actively harmful.
It exists to push a globalist, left-wing political agenda.
It is an international activist group.
It exists to undermine national sovereignty and to undermine truth and virtue in our country and abroad, across the entire globe.
That's the worst interpretation.
And, of course, this worst interpretation is the correct one.
That's what the UN is.
Which is why the UN should be dismantled and torn apart and burned to the ground metaphorically and turned into ash metaphorically and we should metaphorically dance around those ashes because this is a this is an evil organization.
Okay, it's not just when you've got everything going on in the world and they tweet out trans lesbians are lesbians.
That's not just Silly, frivolous, the dumb libs are focused on something that doesn't matter.
That is evil.
It's actually evil, what you're seeing here.
This is an evil organization that we should not have anything to do with in our country.
Okay, moving on to this.
Late last week marked a significant occasion, at least an occasion that we're supposed to believe is significant.
It was the 25th anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard.
And the media and many on the left published their tributes to Matthew Shepard, who they say, of course, and have been saying for two and a half decades now, was the victim of a barbaric anti-gay hate crime.
That's what they say.
And so there are a lot of examples I could show you of the left talking about this and talking about Matthew Shepard and a lot of tweets, a lot of articles and, you know, video tributes and all the rest of it.
So here's just one, one example.
This is from the Daily Beast.
It says, In his 1968 speech at the National Cathedral, Martin Luther King Jr.
proclaimed that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
While that may be true, there are peaks and valleys along that path, especially when it comes to tolerance for and acceptance of those who don't fit into traditional roles and paradigms.
Consequently, reminders of past injustices and the need to keep fighting for equality and compassion remain ever relevant.
That's why Investigation Discovery is commemorating the 25th anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard with a heartfelt documentary about his life, his slaying, and the impact it had on a movement dedicated to achieving freedom for all.
Premiering October 9th, the Matthew Shepard Story in American Hate Crime is a look back at a yesterday that feels long ago and yet also not so far away.
Its story is one that, in 1998, made national headlines and helped drive a campaign for hate crime legislation and, in the process, a wide range of LGBTQ plus rights.
That it took a horrific homicide to spur such changes continues to be a sad commentary about how civil liberties are acquired.
Sadder still, though, is this documentary's coda about the potential limits of progress and the consequent necessity of pushing back against the omnipresent forces of malicious bigotry.
Now, it goes on from there to tell the story of how Shepard was targeted for his sexuality and viciously murdered because of it.
In fact, we have a clip that Investigation Discovery put out from their documentary, which is just someone reading a letter from Matthew Shepard to show what a great guy he was and how sad it all is.
is. Let's play that clip.
Hey, Mom, I'm writing to say hello.
How is everything?
I've been okay.
Kinda homesick.
Having trouble with getting into this swing of things.
But it won't last long, I hope.
I've been real depressed.
And I think it's let down.
I came back and the weather was crummy.
And I miss home.
Miss you.
Love, Matt.
Okay.
So, we got the dramatic music in the background, reading the letter from Matthew Shepard like he's some sort of a great historical figure.
And this is all part of the same narrative, again, that Matthew Shepard is a martyr for gay rights, and he was killed for being gay.
And the problem, of course, with that narrative is that it's a total, absolute lie.
Okay, and it's still, somehow it still surprises me that there are people out there, lots of people, who don't know that this was a lie.
I was tweeting about it yesterday, briefly, and I heard from a lot of people, of course a lot of people on the left, who were, even they don't, can't deny that it's a lie, but instead they just get mad at you for talking about it.
And, but even though there are many other people not on the left who said, well I hadn't heard this before, I didn't realize.
First, I'm hearing it.
I always thought Matthew Shepard.
So, and I don't blame them.
It's just, this just shows how the left's control of information, while it has been compromised in recent years because of, you know, the internet and social media and all that, it's, it's, they still largely control the spread of information.
And therefore largely have the ability to decide, to determine our own history and how we view our own history and events in history, including events that were not all that long ago.
So, the narrative, in case you didn't know this, if you heard about Matthew Shepard, and everyone heard about Matthew Shepard, and I, you know, in my generation, I graduated high school in 2004, and the Matthew Shepard murder was in, what was it, in 1998.
So, I'm right in the generation where they hit us hard.
They hit us very hard with the Matthew Shepard thing.
And I was told while I was, I remember hearing about this in school, and they would tell us about what a terrible hate crime it was.
And of course, when I was a kid in school, I believed it.
I didn't question it.
But we know now that all that is untrue.
The only thing that's true is that he was murdered, yes.
So he was a person who was murdered.
He's one of the thousands of murder victims that we've had in this country over the last 25 years.
But what we know now, and what we've known for a long time, and this again is not in dispute, is that he was not killed for being gay.
This was a drug-related dispute.
Matthew Shepard was a drug dealer.
He was a meth dealer.
He wasn't just dealing any drug.
He was dealing meth.
He was dealing straight poison.
And his murderers were also drug dealers.
And they were gay, too.
So, Matthew Shepard was a gay drug addict and drug dealer, and he even had previous sexual encounters with at least one of his killers.
So, he was killed By a former gay lover because he was a drug dealer.
Not because he's gay.
That's the fact.
Despite what the left says, it is not dangerous to be gay in this country.
At least you're not going to be killed for it.
There are other dangers, health dangers and so on.
But you're not going to be hunted down and killed for it.
Now, if you're a meth dealer, on the other hand, that is a very dangerous occupation.
Now you are in a world with people who, by definition, don't care about the law, are very often very violent people, and this is the world you're in now.
And so Matthew Shepard is one of the many meth dealers and drug dealers who have been killed.
Now is it, as I said when I talked about this on Twitter, it's revealing that when you bring this to the left, they won't even, most of them won't deny what I'm saying.
Not directly, because they know they can't.
It's just, they know they can't.
Instead they'll you know, they'll just label you a homophobe as well.
How dare you bring this up in the first place?
Or they'll try some they'll try to well, that doesn't mean the death isn't sad and shouldn't be remembered You know Every every murder is sad in its own way, I suppose But first of all, I got to be honest with you.
I don't spend a lot of time mourning the deaths of meth dealers I kind of feel like you get into that line of work and ultimately it claims your life.
Well, that's on you.
It's a terrible thing.
The whole thing is sad.
Of course it's sad.
It's sad that somebody would get into dealing meth in the first place.
The whole thing is sad.
I wish that nobody would.
I wish that Matthew Shepard had lived a more productive life and he was still alive to this day, but he's not.
But the point is, the people that say, well, we should still mourn his death.
Really, are there any other drug dealers that died 25 years ago that you're mourning?
No, none at all.
And there are drug dealers that died yesterday.
Are you mourning any of them?
Any of them?
The only reason we know Matthew Shepard's name, only reason, is because of the story that was made up about him.
If not for that story, nobody would remember his name.
If this story was never invented, And I came to you out of nowhere and said, hey, you know, 25 years ago, this meth dealer was killed in a pretty brutal fashion by some of his meth dealing buddies.
Isn't that a terrible tragedy?
You'd look at me with like a blank expression.
You'd say, well, I mean, it's always sad when someone's killed, but why are we talking about this now?
People die every day.
Like, why is that a special tragedy?
Again, the only reason anyone knows his name is because of the story that was made up, which is why anytime his name is brought up, it is always relevant to point out, oh, you know, the only reason you're talking about him?
You know, the only reason?
It is a lie.
And yet, in spite of these facts, the media still pushes Shepard as a martyr.
Now it's true, if you refute it and say, well here's what actually happened, most of them will not try to argue with you because they know they can't, but they'll still push it anyway.
They know it's not true, anyone who's researched this case knows it's not true, and they push it.
And I think that shows us two things.
Number one, that the left, and neither of these are revelations really, but the left Remains committed to their false narratives to the end.
They never let go of their false narratives.
They will stay committed to them forever.
Never let it go.
This is the kind of consistency that they have.
It's a bad consistency because they are consistently liars and they stick to a lie.
But they are relentless.
And that is one of the reasons why the left has been successful in the culture war.
Not just successful, but it's why they own the culture.
The culture, even to this point, is still theirs.
And we as conservatives are kind of, you know, we are the sort of guerrilla fighters in this culture war because we don't have power over any of the institutions.
They have all the institutional power, and this is one of the ways that they achieved it.
By establishing their narrative, establishing their story, and sticking to it always, no matter what, at any cost.
So that's one thing we learned.
The other thing is that leftism, as I've said many times, is essentially a religion.
And it's a religion of self-worship, which is another way of saying that it's Satanism.
You know, it's kind of a secular Satanism.
And a cult, maybe, would be a better word for it.
And any cult has its foundational myths.
And leftism is the same way.
It has its foundational myths.
And the problem with the foundational myth is that you can never really admit that it's a myth.
Because it lays at the foundation of everything else that you're saying and doing.
And if you admit that it's a myth, then it destabilizes the whole structure.
And on the left, all of their foundational myths are based in victimhood.
Okay?
Like, they don't have any heroes.
They don't have anyone that they admire, really, for being triumphant and victorious.
All of their myths are about victimhood.
All of their heroes are victims.
And very often, these are the martyrs that they invent.
It's not even like these are people who died fighting for a cause.
It's not like these are people who lived impressive lives and then were martyred.
No, these are people who did nothing constructive with their lives.
In fact, in many cases were burdens on society, drug dealers, drug addicts, and then were killed.
And it's the manner of their death that the left finds useful.
Or rather, I should say, it's what the left can say.
It's the lie that the left can make up about the manner of the death that they find useful.
I mean, think about it.
The, for the race hustlers on the left, you have the race hustlers and the gender hustlers.
And on the race hustlers, they're, right now, their number one saint, the highest, you know, in the hierarchy, in the saintly hierarchy, is George Floyd.
And then for the gender hustlers and, you know, the gender and sexuality wing of leftism, they have Matthew Shepard.
And in one case, you have a violent criminal drug addict.
In the other case, you have a meth dealer junkie.
And these are their two most blessed, most revered saints.
And in both cases, they will look you in the face and just simply lie to you about how those people died and why.
And if you dare correct them, they'll recoil in horror.
Because we are supposed to, even if, what they tell you is that even if you realize that what they're saying is a lie, you should still have a hushed reverence.
You should have a hushed reverence.
Because these people were killed after all.
So how dare you?
They're dead.
And so that gives us the right to say whatever we want about them.
So if you dispute their narrative, it is somehow, you're disrespecting the memories of these great people.
I don't know about you, but I think when somebody dies, the first and most basic way that we can respect them, whoever they are, is by being honest about who they were.
When you turn them into some sort of mascot, among many other things, I would say that's how you are degrading them and their memory, such as it is.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
Steve Evenly Naked, that's his username, says, I don't care how boring your life is or how bad a writer you are, everybody should write that memoir, their memoir.
It might just be the only part of yourself that outlives you.
Geez, imagine if boring Roman farmers had all written bad memoirs.
Yeah, you make an interesting point.
I was giving, I don't even remember her name now.
What was it, Kerry Washington?
That's a mediocre actress giving her a hard time for writing her memoir and pointing out how so often now memoirs are written by the most boring, least interesting people who also happen to often be very bad writers.
And you make an interesting counterpoint, but I would just say that, you know, you say that this is why we should write memoirs, but I say this, in fact, this is why Whether you write a memoir or not, one of the reasons why you're supposed to have a family and children.
Your children, your descendants, are your living memoir.
They are the part of yourself that outlives you.
The desire to have something that outlives you, that's a natural desire, it's a good desire.
But that's why you have children.
And also, your family, they are the ones who will tell your story.
There's the kind of oral tradition about you that gets passed down.
Just like you may hear stories that are told about your grandparents, if they're now gone, or your great-grandparents.
Now, of course, the issue with that is that if you don't live a good life, you're a bad person, and if you're bad to your family, neglectful of your family, then the stories they tell about you are not going to be probably flattering ones.
But, um, another incentive to live a good life and be a decent person.
Observatim says, "Slight of hand, black people aren't saying that their lives are worse than they might have been
if slavery didn't exist.
They're saying that they are eight times worse off than the average white person today because slavery did exist, which
also explains their other sufferings."
Well, okay, but you stepped aside the point completely.
I mean, you sidestepped the point rather completely.
In order to blame the financial disparity on slavery, you would have to know what the financial disparity would look like if slavery never occurred.
And that's how you would know how much of that disparity you can blame on slavery, if any at all.
And this is why I'm always returning to this point, because it's sort of inescapable.
I mean, you can't really get around it.
Blaming your misfortunes on some historical event from long ago is not only a waste of energy, not only an exercise in futile self-pity, but also it's incoherent because it assumes that you would be more fortunate today if those things had never happened, but for reasons I've explained in great detail in the past, that assumption is probably not justified and certainly cannot ever be proven.
Also, as I said, the disparity between black Americans and white Americans essentially disappears if you are, you know, if you simply wait to have kids until you're married and then you stay married once you have them.
So you can blame slavery all you want.
What I'm saying is that if even, you know, 70% of black Americans were to wait till they're married to have kids and then stay married when they have them.
That disparity you're talking about would begin to disappear very, very quickly.
And it can disappear for you on an individual basis if you simply make that decision.
And anyone can do that, you know, whether or not your ancestors were enslaved.
There's no reason why the enslavement of your ancestors 150 years ago Would compel you, by forces outside of your control somehow, to have babies out of wedlock.
Right?
There's no reason for that.
Finally, you asserted that there was no justification for abortion, but that is factually incorrect.
If a woman's life is in danger while pregnant, in which case abortion is more than justifiable.
Well I would say first of all, directly killing a child, even to save the parent's life, is not justified.
You know prioritizing the life of a even if we're not directly killing a child in most cases
We all kind of intuitively recognize That you don't prioritize the life of an adult over a child.
I mean, it's like even now this again, this is not directly killing but
if there's a Houses on fire and you run into the house and you see a
little baby there Lying there and there's an adult and you can only rescue
one. Let's say I think most people would rescue the baby
And that's not because the adult's life has no meaning or no value, but rather because we recognize that our first Obligation is to protect and preserve the lives of children, especially those who have no capacity to protect themselves.
And not only that, but we would expect the adult to tell you to take the child.
I mean, imagine a baby is lying there in a burning house and the mother is also lying there and her legs are broken or something and she can't leave.
And you run in, and the mother shouts to you and says, take me first!
Take me!
Get me!
Get me out of here!
Now, in a burning house, she wants to get out.
Most of us have never been in a situation like that.
And we recognize that.
But even then, we would harshly, harshly judge that mother, wouldn't we?
Harshly judge her.
Because we realize that, you know, if you really love your child, what you should be shouting is, no, save my child, leave me, come back for me if you have time, but get my child out of here first.
And there are many cases like that.
I mean, there was a case a few years ago, many cases where the parent does the right thing, does what any parent would do.
There was a case a few years ago of a mother in a burning house, and her last act before she succumbed to the flames was to throw her child over a window to people that were waiting on the ground to catch the child.
So her last act was to save her child, and she chose to save her child.
She could have jumped out the window herself first, and she didn't.
She chose to die.
And we all kind of recognize that.
But then when it comes to children in the womb, suddenly it gets flipped on its head.
But I don't think that's... I don't think that it should be.
I think the same moral principle applies.
But anyway, that's all even... That's an interesting discussion.
It's irrelevant because there's actually never a time when you actually need to directly kill the child to save the mother.
You may need to end the pregnancy early, in rare circumstances, in order to save the mother's life.
Which means delivering the child, and these are, you know, those late-term abortions.
What we hear from the left, when it comes to late-term abortions, they say, well, late-term abortions rarely happen, they're a small percentage of cases, and then they give you the percent, and whatever they say the percentage, it still leaves like thousands of abortions, like thousands of cases every year, even according to them, that are late-term.
But then what they'll tell you is that, well, all of those cases are to save the life of the mother.
And they expect you not to notice that, well, wait a second, if there's something happening, and this can happen in a pregnancy, especially later in a pregnancy, some sort of catastrophic thing has occurred, and if the woman remains pregnant, she will die.
Well, in that case, you can deliver the child, and even if it's 22 weeks into pregnancy, with the miracle of modern medicine, there's a very good chance that child will still survive.
Abortion, so yes, you can end the pregnancy by delivering the child.
Abortion, it adds an extra step where we are killing the child before delivering the child.
And that is certainly not necessary for saving the mother's life.
It is a grotesque, gratuitous, Just explicit act of the direct murder of a child, which again is always wrong in every circumstance.
Is there anything scarier than gender ideology infecting bedrock American brands and turning them into some insane, woke zombie?
Well, maybe a night in Vegas with Hunter Biden would be scarier.
I get it.
But the truth is, these companies hate your values, so stop giving them your money.
Back in March, we launched Jeremy's Chocolate and instantly sold hundreds of thousands of chocolate bars.
Now, just in time for Halloween, we are now introducing our new bite-size microaggression bars, still in the same binary nut or nutless bars, just as God intended.
You can order both or each separately.
We gave the she-her bars their own space.
The truth is always sweeter when shared.
Go to jeremychocolate.com and order yours today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
It is Columbus Day.
Long-time listeners of this show will know that it is a tradition on Columbus Day for me to carve out a section of the show to talk about the holiday and why it deserves to be celebrated, despite what the leftist crybabies and historical revisionists might say.
And I will continue with this tradition for as long as the holiday and the man it commemorates remain under attack, which means that I will continue it indefinitely.
If you hear Columbus acknowledged at all today in the media or by any political or cultural figure of note, it would almost certainly be a condemnation.
They will tell us that, the same thing they've been telling us for many years, that Columbus was a genocidal maniac whose arrival led to the alleged genocide of so-called Native Americans or quote-unquote indigenous people.
In the same breath, without a hint of irony, They will also decry what they describe as overly simplistic portrayals of Columbus and his voyages, hoping you don't notice how no portrayal of Columbus is as absurdly and cartoonishly simplistic as the one you get from these very same people.
Now, as mentioned, I have made the case many times for why Columbus deserves to be celebrated, deserves to have his federal holiday, his statues, his cities named after him.
And the case is pretty straightforward.
Christopher Columbus was a very great man, and one of the most consequential figures to ever live on planet Earth.
He quite easily had more of an impact than every single one of his modern critics combined times a thousand.
These are the people that we give holidays to, or used to.
The people who shape the world.
And say whatever else you want about Columbus, he did more than almost any other single person in history to shape the world we live in today.
Now, it's often said by idiots who claim to be intellectually nuanced that if Columbus did achieve this world-shaping feat, he did it accidentally.
Now, even if that's true, it wouldn't change his significance or the significance of what he accomplished, but it's not true.
He may have been looking for the East Indies.
In other words, he was looking for land he knew existed, rather than looking for land he didn't know existed, so could not have been looking for by definition.
But there was nothing accidental about his voyage.
You know, he didn't trip and fall and drift across the Atlantic.
Rather, he led a small fleet of ships over an unknown ocean, without the use of any modern navigational equipment, without even a map to guide the way.
And you would think that this would be a rather impressive thing to modern people who can't manage to drive to the Starbucks three blocks away without the assistance of satellite navigation.
But that would require modern people to have humility and perspective, both of which are in short supply.
Now, over the course of his four voyages, Columbus discovered many Caribbean islands and explored the coasts of Central and South America.
The full scope of what he had discovered would not be fully understood until after he died, but the fact remains that Columbus brought Western civilization across a vast and uncharted and dangerous sea.
And into a previously unexplored and unknown hemisphere of the globe.
He forever changed the world and he changed it in a way, and to a degree, matched by very few other people who have ever lived on the planet.
And aside from Jesus Christ, exceeded by perhaps no one.
He did this through his courage and his daring and his brilliance and his vision.
All things worth admiring.
And all virtues that Columbus possessed in far greater quantity than any of his smarmy, petty, non-contributing critics.
Was Columbus a deeply flawed man?
Could he be brutal and unjust?
Yes!
Welcome to almost any great man who has ever lived!
Sure, Columbus captured slaves.
He executed both Spaniards and Indians under his rule.
He took gold.
He was, by all accounts, a pretty bad governor.
This was a common flaw of explorers of that era.
Many of them were brilliant on their ships, but incompetent or downright horrible on solid ground.
Magellan, for example, made it three quarters of the way around the world before getting himself killed in a needless conflict with a tribe in the Philippines.
There was a certain type of man who was needed to navigate a fleet of ships across uncharted waters.
And there was a different kind of man, oftentimes, who was needed to manage settlements.
Unfortunately, the latter type had no way of getting to the settlement except by hitching a ride with the former.
And the former wasn't often willing to cede control of the land he had just gone through all that trouble of discovering.
A somewhat understandable reluctance, I think.
Now, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the flaws of men like Christopher Columbus.
Nobody is suggesting that we should honor them as perfect people or worship them as gods.
The point of the statues and the monuments and the holidays, etc., is to remember and celebrate the indispensable role they played in establishing the civilization in which we all live now.
A civilization that just so happens to be the freest and most prosperous in the history of the world.
Columbus, through his navigational brilliance, boldness, courage, vision, and determination, is one of the men we have to thank for that.
And we should thank him for that.
Now, some people might claim that Western civilization is nothing to be thankful for at all.
But I can't help but notice that those people still choose to live here, enjoying the comforts and freedoms given to them by the very men whose monuments they deface and holidays they cancel.
They claim this is stolen land, yet they remain on it.
Basking in its luxuries.
The fact is that they would much prefer to live in the colonized version of this land than the alternative.
Most Indian tribes were about five to six thousand years behind the more advanced civilizations on the other side of the ocean.
So when those people, beginning with Columbus, came to the New World, they were going back in time by about five to six thousand years.
If those people on this side of the world were left to their own devices, by now they probably still wouldn't have even invented the wheel.
That's how far behind they were.
And that is not a world that any supposed opponent of colonization would want to live in, no matter what they say.
Which brings us to the day that has come to replace Columbus Day.
And now you'll hear most people in the mainstream talk about Indigenous People's Day.
Joe Biden recognized Indigenous People's Day in a presidential proclamation for the first time two years ago.
In many corners of American society, it has entirely supplanted Columbus Day.
But Indigenous People's Day is a total farce.
And a disgrace.
And a joke.
For several reasons that I'll explain.
It's not a real holiday.
It is a political statement.
It is a protest.
It was a thing invented specifically to overshadow Columbus Day.
Leftists don't understand why this is a problem because everything they do is reactive in this way.
Their whole cultural agenda is designed to supplant, destroy, dismantle the old traditions and old values.
They have no ideas of their own.
They have nothing new or interesting to say.
They just have a bunch of things they don't like and want to destroy for reasons they can barely articulate.
Columbus Day celebrates one of the greatest historical figures to ever live.
Indigenous Peoples Day is a political tactic meant to undermine that same historical figure.
So, if you want a real holiday in order to celebrate indigenous people, then get your own day.
Try for once to come up with one idea that isn't designed to simply be the opposite of someone else's idea.
Think for yourselves for a change, you damned half-wit plagiarists.
Second, the underlying premise of the day is false.
You know, this is supposedly a day to acknowledge the people whose land was stolen by European settlers, but the whole stolen land thing is preposterous.
You know, there were maybe as low as one or two million Indians living on the entire North American continent by the 15th century, and most there were maybe 15 or 20 million.
Okay?
A wide range.
We don't know exactly how many people were here, but either way, that's not a lot of people.
And the point is that the vast, vast majority of the land was unoccupied.
North America and Central and South America.
These were mostly untamed, unexplored, uninhabited wildernesses.
The smattering of tribes spread out across 9 million square miles in North America.
They didn't own the whole thing.
People these days talk as if the Europeans had no right to come here in the first place, which is an interesting assertion from open borders advocates, but that's obviously absurd on its face.
The tide of civilizational expansion and progress was not going to be held back forever.
And the idea that a ragtag collection of warring Stone Age tribes somehow laid eternal claim to this entire hemisphere is just insane.
It is crazy.
The land was destined to be conquered by more civilized and advanced people, and it was.
And thank God it was.
Third, the whole concept of indigenous people is arbitrary, if not totally nonsensical.
Okay, like, I think we should stop calling.
We should stop using indigenous and native to describe the group of people that it usually describes.
What makes a person indigenous exactly?
And how long does their lineage have to be present here?
Like, if I can trace my family back 100 years, is that not good enough?
200 years?
300 years?
The absurd reality is that if you are a white person living in the United States of America, and your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower 400 years ago, you still somehow do not count as either Native or Indigenous.
This is not your native land, even after four centuries.
Okay, your family could have been here for 400 years building this society.
And somehow, even after all that time, this is not your native land, you're told.
So where is your native land, exactly?
If you are not indigenous to this place, the place where you were born, and your parents were born, and your grandparents were born, and your grandparents' grandparents' grandparents were born, Then where are you indigenous?
You know the answer from these people?
The answer is nowhere.
The cultural powers that be, they want you to consider yourself ancestrally homeless.
You belong nowhere.
You are a usurper and an invader no matter where you go.
You have no native home, no matter how long your family has lived here.
Now, nobody applies this standard to the so-called indigenous people.
I always hear that they were the people who originated here.
What do you mean originated here?
You think they climbed out of the ground?
You think they grew on trees?
What do you mean originated here, you idiots?
All of the so-called indigenous people, they all descend from people who came here at some point in the past and fought over the land and killed each other brutally for centuries to claim whatever slice of it they possessed before the white settlers arrived.
And then those settlers did the same thing that the so-called indigenous people did.
They fought for the land.
And they won.
They built a life for themselves through work and toil and hardship and blood.
They won.
Get over it.
They won.
And this is our land now.
Yeah, we're supposed to live in a state of perpetual shame over this history?
Hell no.
I don't play that game.
This is my home.
I am native to this country.
I originate here.
It's where I was born.
It's where my children were born.
I belong here.
I am proud of our history.
I am proud of the men who built our civilization.
I celebrate those men.
I will continue to celebrate them.
Were they colonizers?
Sure they were.
And I celebrate that too, okay?
I celebrate the fact that they colonized this land.
I am glad they did it.
Because what they did is they forged into an unknown wilderness and they built a life for themselves, expanding Western civilization in the process.
It was a virtuous act.
And through it, they earned the right to call this place home and for all of their descendants through the ages to do the same.
That is why they get the holidays.
They earn them.
And it's also why, ultimately today, Indigenous Peoples' Day, that ridiculous, fake disgrace of a holiday, is cancelled.
