Ep. 1240 - BLM Endorses Terrorism, To The Surprise Of No One
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it's been clear since its inception that BLM is a terrorist organization. But now they've left no doubt after they endorse the murder of civilians under the guise of 'decolonization.' The Biden Administration declares that even with war raging in the Middle East, our greatest concern is still climate change. We are finally hearing from the other passengers on the train with Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely. Their testimony makes it clear that Penny was totally justified in his actions. And feminists are grappling with a difficult question: how can they be empowered and independent women, while still expecting men to pay the dinner bill?
Ep.1240
- - -
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
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Helix - Get 20% OFF + 2 FREE Pillows with all mattress orders at http://www.HelixSleep.com/WALSH.
My Patriot Supply - Additional Savings on a 3-month Emergency Food Kit at http://www.preparewithwalsh.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, it's been clear since its inception that BLM is a terrorist organization, but now they've left no doubt after they endorsed the murder of civilians under the guise of, quote, decolonization.
Also, the Biden administration declares that even with war raging in the Middle East, our greatest concern is still climate change.
And we're finally hearing from the other passengers on the train with Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely.
Their testimony makes it clear that Penny was totally justified in his actions.
And feminists are grappling with a difficult question.
How can they be empowered and independent women while still expecting men to pay the dinner bill?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Everyone knows I love my Helix mattress, but did you know that they just launched their
newest, most high-end collection, Helix Elite?
Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and also firmness preferences.
I've had my Helix for years and I love it.
It's the best mattress I've ever had.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress.
Because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz and find the perfect mattress for your body type and sleep type.
Your mattress will come right to your door for free.
Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
Helix is offering 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
For my listeners, go to helixsleep.com.
This is their best offer yet and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
If you haven't been on a college campus recently, it can be easy to underestimate how completely incomprehensible everything has become.
It's like traveling to a foreign country.
They're not even using the English language to educate students anymore.
Instead, academics believe that their job is to constantly come up with new, overwrought terminology that doesn't really mean anything. They're
inventing terms like environmental racism and racialized communities and housing
justice and lived experience and minoritized peoples and so on. And then academics will
often string all of those nonsense terms together creating this kind of disfigured
Lovecraftian patchwork of wokeness.
They'll say things like, "Minoritized people and racialized communities seeking housing
justice must wrestle with their lived experience of environmental racism."
And then everybody just sort of nods like they heard something profound.
It's kind of like this glorified game of Mad Libs.
It's not hard to mock these professors and point out what a scam all this is, and often on this show I've done exactly that.
But at the same time, we shouldn't ignore everything that's going on in academia, because the truth is that some of these terms, which might seem meaningless to the sane population, Actually have a very real meaning to leftists.
So take the idea we've talked about this week of decolonization, which became a very popular topic in universities starting in about the 1960s or so.
This is a word that on its own without context could mean pretty much anything.
I mean, what does it mean to decolonize the United States, for example?
Does it mean we need to recite land acknowledgements all the time?
Does it mean we have to physically leave our homes and surrender them to Indian reserves?
Does it mean we need to be more mindful of our microaggressions and how we're treating indigenous folks, whatever any of that means?
Reasonable people can disagree on what exactly the word decolonization means, but all along, leftists have known exactly what they mean by the term decolonization.
The faculty members who have taught students about the importance of decolonization for the past few decades have understood the word perfectly.
Decolonization means, for them, dismantling Western civilization through violence.
That's what it means.
Anytime they use the term, that's what they're referring to.
It means killing any race, creed, or political opponent who stands in their way.
In 1961, the Marxist political philosopher Franz Fanon was pretty explicit about this.
He said, quote, Now, this is not some fringe understanding of decolonization.
is quite simply the replacing of a certain species of men by another species of men.
Now this is not some fringe understanding of decolonization.
Leftists have been taught that this process and all the violence it entails is necessary.
It's appropriate, given the supposed evils of colonization.
Students at most major universities have been told this for decades.
And now those students are in positions of power in various industries and disciplines, and they also are in power in these universities, and they're passing down this same idea.
And this ideology has corrupted everything.
A couple of years ago, a researcher writing in The Lancet, which is supposedly a medical journal, published a paper called Navigating the Violent Process of Decolonization in Global Health Research.
Here's what the researcher named Munira A. Rashid wrote, "Historically, decolonization has always been a violent
process, and global health might experience the same.
Disrupting and calling out neocolonial practices requires courage to bear the cost that comes with doing so."
Bear the cost of decolonization.
The cost is, as we know, violence.
As of this week, predictably, this same researcher is using her social media feed to explain that the violence in Israel is an example of decolonization.
And she's not the only one.
We showed you many examples of this the other day.
After Hamas massacred men, women, and children in Israel this weekend, the right was, for the most part, shocked and horrified, as any normal person would be.
But many on the left were not very surprised at all.
I mean, they saw the attack as an example of decolonization, and they were Either apathetic about it, or outwardly supportive in many cases.
Many university student groups have come out with statements making this very clear.
The president of the Student Bar Association at NYU Law School sent a school-wide email saying that Israel bears, quote, full responsibility for the massacre because of its role in perpetuating, quote, settler colonialism.
This is someone the students at NYU Law elected to serve as their representative, and this is what we're being told.
And by the way, this person uses they-them pronouns, identifies as non-binary, and changed her name just last year.
So you have to wonder, how long would that student last if you dumped her in Gaza?
Probably not very long.
But irony doesn't register with fundamentalists, and all they care about is their ideology.
It's all that matters to them.
And that's why at the University of Virginia, a student group described the murder of Jews as a, quote, step toward a free Palestine and a win for, quote, colonized people everywhere.
And everywhere you look on social media, you can find leftists using the same language about decolonization and colonizers, all to justify all manner of atrocities.
So here, for example, was the reaction of one leftist who couldn't understand why more people on the right
weren't aware of the meaning of decolonization and why people are so upset about it.
I mean, it's just the massacre of women and children.
What's the big deal?
Here's what she had to say.
I can't stop thinking about the way that colonization is in its reckoning period
across so much of West Africa and Central Africa.
We're seeing coups and we're seeing uprisings.
And, you know, I'm not an expert on the politics of Israel and Palestine, but it is also deeply unsurprising to me seeing what's happening in Palestine.
Because everyone is acting, like some people are acting confused and the instinct here, given the complexity, is to see things in terms of this is horrific, what's happened to Israel.
But when you all examined colonization and decolonizing, what did you actually think that would look like?
Like, for real, it is so interesting watching people comment on this.
Now, when you listen to someone like that, you know, oftentimes it's like, again, speaking a different language from every sane person in the United States.
Oh, you didn't know that decolonization meant killing children?
You didn't know that it meant mowing down teenage girls at a rave and shooting elderly women in their homes and shooting people on bus stops?
Well, what did you think it meant?
It's so interesting.
Oh, it's so interesting that you're so stupid you didn't know that this is what it meant.
And that you don't understand the complexity.
This is what a bunch of women with dyed hair and nose rings sitting in their homes pontificating about the complexities of murdering innocent people.
Well, you know there are complexities and nuances to this you couldn't possibly understand.
This is how really most young people think in this country, believe it or not.
YouGov just published an incredible survey on this.
They found that as of October 9th, More than 76% of U.S.
adults believe that Hamas is deliberately striking Israeli civilian areas.
Now, that's obviously really a low percentage since a couple of days before that survey was conducted, Hamas committed the mass murder of Israeli civilians on camera.
But it's still an overwhelming majority of people, especially if you narrow it down to people over the age of 75.
But if you go to U.S.
adults between the ages of 18 to 29, though, only 32% of those adults believe that Hamas is targeting Israeli civilian areas.
And just 44% of Americans aged 45 to 65 think that that's happening.
Now, some of that may be ignorance of what's happening, but it's hard not to conclude that a lot of these younger people in particular believe that Israeli targets are not civilian areas by definition.
They've bought into the decolonization theory, which states that colonizers are effectively combatants.
They're fair game.
Just by being there.
Just by existing.
This is yet more evidence that we are witnessing once again an esoteric academic theory, which when you listen to it sounds just nonsensical and ridiculous, and it is, but then it trickles down throughout society after beginning in the university system.
It starts there and then it goes through the pipeline and it makes its way into society.
And pretty soon it's used to justify actual real-world brutality.
We saw this with BLM a few years ago, and now they're back at it.
They're using the theory-driven language of modern academia in order to support mass slaughter.
BLM Grassroots, for example, just posted that, quote, As black people continue to fight to end militarism and mass incarceration in our own communities, let us understand the resistance in Palestine as an attempt to tear down the gates of the world's largest open-air prison.
We see clear parallels between black and Palestinian people.
We, too, dream of a world where our people may live freely on decolonized land.
So, they want Hamas-style terrorist attacks in this country.
And this is what they're saying.
Rather explicitly, they'd love to see colonizers raped and murdered in their homes.
There are no innocent colonizers.
You and your entire family, you are colonizing just by living in the United States, and you all deserve to die.
This is what they believe.
And just in case there was any doubt about that, BLM Chicago just uploaded a photo of a paraglider with the Palestinian flag along with the words, I stand with Palestine.
And this, of course, is a direct reference to the Hamas terrorists who just parachuted into the rave in Israel and began executing hundreds of people.
They have made that into their mascot, their kind of rallying cry.
Now, for a lot of people on the right, that post was a shock.
It was hard for many people to grasp that the notion that decolonization could possibly mean the murder and rape of civilians.
But that's what it means.
And it shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
For years, the left has portrayed BLM as essentially a decolonizing force.
As BLM rioters torched stores and police stations and murdered innocent people, the media characterized this violence as a way to decolonize the West.
The New York Times, for example, published an op-ed proudly reporting that, quote, partly riding the global surge of Black Lives Matter mobilizations, calls for decolonization have swept Europe's former imperial metropoles.
This is why BLM, from the beginning, called Israel a genocidal state.
It's why they put abolishing the nuclear family in their official platform.
And it's why the entire corporate media embraced them.
In reality, BLM had nothing to do with improving the lives of black people, of course.
A lot more black people died after the George Floyd riots than were dying before it.
The point of BLM was to act as foot soldiers for decolonization.
That means, when it comes to what's happening overseas, it means eliminating Israel, it means eliminating, in this country, white people.
Most people on the left understood that at the time.
They could read between the lines.
But a lot of people on the right, including high-ranking politicians, somehow didn't see any of this.
Were blindsided by it.
Which is an oversight, to put it mildly.
And rather an unforgivable one.
It didn't happen simply because leaders on the right neglected to listen in on college lectures.
It didn't happen simply because they failed to go back and research the origins of decolonization theory.
It happened because at the outset, many on the right immediately accepted the false premise that colonization was somehow a bad thing.
This is, and this is also, this is the way things usually work.
The left comes up with some crazy theory, and the right will object to how that theory manifests itself, and to, you know, how the left responds to this theory they've come up with.
But as they object, they will still often accept the underlying premise itself.
And you still see this with a lot of people on the right.
When they hear about decolonization, now they might object by saying, well, we're not colonizers.
Of course, colonizing is a terrible thing, but it's not true.
We're innocent of that charge.
And of course, we aren't colonizers just because we happen to live in the United States.
But also, we never should have accepted the premise that colonization is some sort of inherently bad, evil thing.
It's actually a ludicrous premise.
No matter what leftists meant when they say that they want to decolonize the West, the right should have opposed it on principle.
That's because colonization, historically, has been a force for good throughout the world.
It was the process of introducing the rule of law, public health, human dignity, to certainly this entire hemisphere that we're currently living on.
As we've talked about earlier in the week, before colonization, the natives were ripping the hearts out of children as offerings to their sun gods.
And of course, when I say natives, I don't know why I say that term, but the tribes that lived on this continent when the conquistadors arrived were themselves not native to this continent.
They came here and killed whoever was there first.
But in any event, conquering them was the right decision for all of humanity.
And it's just beyond dispute that we are all living much better lives now because of it.
That's what colonization means in practical terms.
It means you're doing a lot better now than you would have if colonization had never occurred.
And that's pretty clear.
And after the massacres in Israel this week and the shameful and brazen response from many corners of the left, no serious person could dispute what decolonization means either.
It refers to a genocidal ideology that we have let fester for far too long.
And at this point, the stakes are obvious.
Everybody promoting decolonization wants to murder civilians, not just in Israel, but in every civilized country on the planet.
Don't ignore what they're saying.
Understand that they are your enemy, and the enemy of all civilized people.
And that's why when they call you a colonizer, you should tell them, you're welcome.
And then you should prepare to defend yourself.
Because you know what happens next.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You need My Patriot Supply.
My Patriot Supply is your trusted partner for emergency preparedness, whether it's a natural disaster, a sudden emergency, or unforeseen circumstances.
My Patriot Supply's high-quality food storage solutions ensure that you and your loved ones are always well-fed, no matter what comes your way.
Right now, My Patriot Supply is offering $25 off a three-month food supply to help you stay prepared for anything.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and grab this special price before it ends.
Your three-month emergency food supply provides over 2,000 calories each day for optimal strength
and energy in stressful situations. You can enjoy a wide variety of MyPager supply and can even
customize your supply. They offer an ultimate breakfast kit, a mega protein kit with real
meats and even a gluten-free kit. Each meal is delicious and has a shelf life of 25 years.
Don't wait for disaster to strike before taking action.
Invest in your safety and well-being by securing your food storage today.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and save 25% off a three-month supply.
That's preparewithwalsh.com.
Daily Wire has this report.
White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby refused to say this week that nuclear war is more dangerous to humanity than climate change.
Kirby made the remarks, or lack thereof, during an interview on Fox News with Martha McCallum as war rages in Europe between Russia and Ukraine, and has exploded in the Middle East as Iranian-backed Islamic terrorist groups launch an unprecedented terrorist attack against Israel.
McCallum asked Kirby about recent remarks from President Joe Biden on the topic.
And let's go ahead and play the clip from Fox.
Given that the United States is now involved in wars that are taking place in Europe and also in the Middle East, I want to play this soundbite for you that is just last month in Vietnam and ask you if this still holds for the President.
Watch.
The only existential threat humanity faces, even more frightening than a nuclear war, is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next 20, 10 years.
Given all the nuclear players in these two areas where we are now engaged on, does the president stand by that comment?
Absolutely he does.
Climate change is an existential threat.
It can, you know, it actually threatens and is capable of wiping out all human life on earth over time.
I mean that's, I don't know how more existential you can get to that, but that doesn't mean that we walk away from our obligations, our national security interests, in very dangerous parts of the world.
But John, he said it was more frightening than a nuclear war.
Is that, it's more frightening than a nuclear war in this moment?
The President believes wholeheartedly that climate change is an existential threat to all of human life on the planet.
That's just science.
That's a fact, Martha.
But it doesn't mean that we turn our back on the other challenges facing this country and our allies and partners around the world.
We've got broad national security commitments, literally globally, and we've got to mind all of them at the same time.
You mentioned two of them, obviously Israel right now, certainly Ukraine over the last almost two years now.
We are big enough.
And powerful enough and effective enough nation to be able to look after all these disparate national security threats and one of them absolutely is climate change.
So, first of all, I'm not a fan of Fox, as you know, but I think that this is a good line of questioning.
It's a great idea, when we're in the middle of some real-world crisis, to call a leftist in and ask them questions like this.
Like, hey, you were just saying that climate change and white supremacy and transphobia are our greatest challenges.
Do you still think that now?
And of course, they're going to say yes, because they have to say yes, but it's a fantastic way to expose the shallowness and Absurdity of their worldview and how disconnected from reality it is.
But the bad news, of course, is that these people happen to be in charge of the country.
And, you know, we are seeing again why leftists can't govern.
I mean, there's a reason why every city under their control is a crime ridden wasteland.
And it's because they don't deal In or with practical realities.
They deal in theory and narratives.
You know, conservatives are always going to be, by and large, better leaders, better governors, better managers in businesses, because conservatives operate in reality and with reality.
And even if someone, a conservative, makes a wrong decision or does the wrong thing, at least there's a reasoning and there's motives that are decipherable.
There's always a chance that he'll learn from his mistakes and do better in the future.
But leftists don't operate that way.
They live in the land of narrative.
And they simply can't cross the threshold back into reality, even if they want to.
And that's what we're seeing here.
And it brings us, actually, quickly to the next story, speaking of being disconnected from reality.
There was a large Free Palestine rally in Dearborn, Michigan, yesterday.
And a couple of clips.
Well, here's the first clip, before we get to the one, the funny one.
Some familiar slogans being chanted.
Let's watch this.
Palestine will be free!
Louder!
From the river to the sea!
Palestine will be free!
No justice!
No justice, no peace.
Free Palestine.
I'm going to hear that drum.
Free Palestine.
They said, the American government said what happened last Saturday was unprovoked.
We don't want to be violent.
We are not violent people.
We are full of love.
But when you have 75 years of ethnic cleansing, 56 years of occupation, 15 years of a blockade.
That means nothing is unprovoked in Palestine.
They have to understand.
That's why we are frustrated here today.
Okay, so adopting, of course, the slogans and mantras of Black Lives Matter, and we know from experience with BLM that No Justice, No Peace is an explicit endorsement of violence, and it's a pledge to continue violence, particularly against innocent people.
They're saying they don't want peace until all their demands are met.
That's what peace means, is do exactly what I want.
That's the point of the chant.
But we're just talking about leftists disconnected from reality, and there's no better example than, I think, this next clip from the same speaker.
And here's what he says.
So don't let them get it twisted. This is not complicated when you go to a Black Lives Matter rally
You see palestinian flags when you go to a white supremacy rally, you see israeli flags. This is not complicated
When zionists march down the street, they say death to arabs when we march down the street. We say free free palestine
This is not difficult everybody Okay now
I'll admit first of all, I don't know exactly what white supremacy rally he's talking about precisely
I haven't seen any rally that could even vaguely be described as a white supremacist rally recently.
But if I did stumble across something that you could actually call a white supremacist rally, whatever that would be, I'm pretty certain there wouldn't be any Israeli flags there.
You know, yes, yes, you know, the white supremacists, those famous fans of the Jews, that's the one thing, that's the one thing that ties all white supremacists together, is how much they love Jewish people.
If there's anything that defines a white supremacist, it is his unbiding love for the Jews.
You know, it's a great And the white supremacists, that's the thing.
I mean, I hear from the white supremacists all the time, and they're always going on and on and on about how we need to protect Israel.
They just, they won't shut up about it.
It's the most important thing to them, is we got to protect Israel.
I kind of wish I could hear the rest of this guy's speech, just to hear what other super relatable scenarios he describes.
You know what I love about going to Vegan rallies?
They always give out Outback Steakhouse coupons.
That's my favorite thing about them.
Just, no part of that makes any sense at all, until you realize, of course, that it doesn't appear to make sense, because if you're someone who lives in reality, and you're a sane and reasonable person, and you hear that there are Israeli flags at a white supremacist rally, you know, that doesn't make any sense to you.
But then you realize that when he talks about white supremacists, what he means is just Any white person who doesn't agree with him is a white supremacist.
Which is also the leftist definition of the term.
Or maybe more broadly, any conservative.
So he's talking about any rally that's politically conservative is white supremacist, and that's where you see the Israeli flags.
Now, even that isn't true.
I've never been to a white supremacist rally.
I've been to plenty of conservative rallies and demonstrations.
I don't know if I've ever seen somebody flying an Israeli flag at any demonstration I've been to in my life, but that is what he's referring to.
All right, now before we move on from this topic, I want to play a quick clip that Lindsey Graham posted to Twitter.
He posted this himself.
It's only seven seconds.
So now usually with a seven second clip, you would think it might be taken out of context.
It's only seven seconds.
But this is the clip that he chose of himself and put it to put it on Twitter.
And here he is on Fox News last night.
Listen.
We're in a religious war here.
I am with Israel.
Do whatever the hell you have to do to defend yourself.
Level the place.
Okay.
And this is what makes me very concerned and very worried, is you have people like Lindsey Graham.
This is a sitting U.S.
Senator who, for whatever reason, has been in that position for a very long time.
He's never accomplished anything.
He's never done anything worthwhile.
We can't look at where we are in America right now and pinpoint any sort of positive thing that we can partially thank Lindsey Graham for.
Okay?
We can't do that.
And yet, still, he's a sitting U.S.
Senator, and here he is just casually declaring that we're in a religious war.
And, yeah, I posted about this earlier and took issue with it, and somehow a lot of people missed the point.
I don't know how you could.
And they responded by saying, well, this is a religious war.
What's wrong with what he said?
The religious war part is not where I object.
The religious part is not the word that I object to in that sentence.
Yes, it is, in large part, you might call it a religious war.
The issue is not that part.
The issue is the we, okay?
What I object to is the we in that statement.
We are in a religious war.
So, this is a sitting U.S.
Senator who has casually declared That the United States is at war.
As far as I know, we have not declared war, but Lindsey Graham has.
Yeah, we're at war.
And not only that, but he's declared that we're in a holy war.
We're in a religious war.
We are.
Now, I know that the defense that I've already heard of Lindsey Graham is that, well, no, when he says we, he's talking about Israel.
Well, right, but Israel and the United States of America are two separate countries.
We are not one country.
I know that Nikki Haley, when this first happened, said that an attack on Israel is an attack on America.
It's not.
It's just not.
And this is not semantics, okay?
What happened is a terrible, savage, evil thing, as I have said many times.
I have no problem stating that.
Nobody should.
Like, it's not a difficult thing when you've got elderly people getting gunned down on bus stops and music festivals being attacked and massacred.
It's not difficult to say that it's a brutal, barbaric, terrible, evil thing.
And also, there's no but here.
And also, that was an attack on Israel.
An attack on Israel is not an attack on America.
It's two separate countries.
It's not the same thing.
If that attack was waged in New York or something, then that would be an attack on America.
But an attack in Israel is not the same thing as an attack on America.
Because we are, again, two separate countries.
And I think that it's hard to call that semantics.
Because the semantic difference here is a difference of countries.
So that's the problem.
It's saying that because this is happening there, we are automatically at war as well.
And I know we're used to this now from our political leaders.
They speak so flippantly.
They're doing the same thing in Ukraine.
They've been doing that same thing.
And now, I mean, there was a time when it would be, like, a huge scandal.
There was a time when it would be a huge scandal for a political representative to stand up and declare war on his own.
Just on his own, saying, yeah, we're at war.
There was a time when that would be a big scandal.
Now we're used to it.
These people do it all the time.
But it should be shocking, and it should be considered a scandal, because it is.
And to have people this reckless who are in charge right now, it does, and maybe when I call them reckless, maybe I'm doing them a favor.
You know, maybe I'm being way too generous.
Because the reality is that, you know, reckless means that you're just, you're emotional and you're lashing out.
Which would be bad.
But at least it's at some level understandable, I suppose.
People get emotional and they lash out.
It's actually worse than that, because the truth is that there are people in our government who are itching for World War III.
They want it.
Because it's more power for them, for one thing.
You know, for them, the people in power means more power and money if we're at war.
And that certainly applies to Lindsey Graham.
And here's the thing, I think Israel has shown that it is more than capable of defending itself and handling this situation.
I think the best thing we can do is get out of the way, let them do that.
And our most immediate response to what's happening should be to fortify our own borders.
Because what happened is not an attack on America, but it might be.
That might be next.
So we should start getting to work to prevent that from happening.
In our country.
All right.
Here's another report from the Daily Wire.
It says, new court documents in the Daniel Penney case reveal the harrowing testimony of fellow subway riders who say they hid and prayed to escape the subway train due to Jordan Neely's threats and, quote, satanic behavior.
That's a quote.
Penny, a 24-year-old U.S.
Marine veteran, is facing up to 19 years behind bars for the death of Neely, whom Penny restrained on the subway train in what prosecution argues was a deadly chokehold.
According to Fox News, recently disclosed court documents reveal that a mother and her son hid behind a stroller and a high school student prayed as Jordan Neely yelled, someone's going to die today.
Another woman reportedly described Neely's behavior as sickening and satanic.
And said she believed that she was going to die as Neely approached her, an experience that she called absolutely traumatizing.
One woman recalled Neely yelling on the subway, I want to hurt people, I want to go to Rikers, I want to go to prison.
The woman was with her son and the pair, she says, hid behind a stroller as Neely allegedly charged at passengers.
One high school student says that she heard Neely yell, someone's gonna die today.
The girl recalled grabbing her classmates and praying that the subway doors would open.
One retiree who's used the subway for over 30 years said, nothing has put fear into me like the experience with Neely.
Penny has been charged with second degree manslaughter, negligent homicide and Neely's death.
Now, we already knew this even before this update when we're hearing from the passengers.
We already knew that Daniel Penney being charged in this case, I mean, it's one of the worst injustices we've seen in this country in recent years.
And of course, that is really saying something.
To have a man who stepped up in this moment to protect the people around him.
And yes, he was defending himself as well.
But it's pretty clear that Daniel Penney was not the one most at risk.
If Jordan Neely really did start lashing out, there are a lot of other people on the subway that would probably be hurt before Daniel Penney would get hurt.
So he's really doing this primarily for the other people on the subway, who we now know, some of them were crouched behind strollers and praying for their safety.
That's how most people responded.
They were trembling in fear and just hoping the doors would open so they could get out in time.
That's how most people responded, because that's how most people respond in these situations.
And Daniel Penney said, no, I'm not just going to sit here and wait and hope.
I'm not going to roll the dice with my life and everybody else's life, so I'm going to do something about it.
Defend us.
And the fact that he's been charged with a crime, they're trying to throw him in prison for 20 years, we already knew this is just a grotesque injustice.
But then you actually hear the testimony from the passengers, and this is all testimony that obviously law enforcement, the police, they would have interviewed all the passengers, they knew all of this.
The prosecutors, they obviously knew all of this before charging Daniel Penney.
I mean, just think about that for a second.
They would have interviewed everyone on the train, and so they heard all of these people on the train saying, yeah, he was threatening to kill us, we were terrified, we all thought that we might be hurt or killed.
And they heard that, and they charged him anyway.
Because, as we know, it was a foregone conclusion.
They were always going to charge him because it's not really about him and it's not about this particular incident.
He's a sacrifice on the altar of racial justice because they're charging him.
They're charging him not because of what he did or any facts about the case.
They're charging him because he's white.
He's black and that's what the charge is about.
But the injustice comes into clearer focus now, now that we're actually hearing more from the passengers on the train.
And this is not surprising either, because it was always conspicuous from the very beginning, you know, I made note of this, that while the media is claiming that Daniel Penney is some sort of crazed murderer who just went up to this homeless guy who was, what do they describe him as?
He was just having a mental health crisis, that's all.
Describing it in the most sanitized, medicalized terminology they can.
But while they claim this, it was very conspicuous that the media reports didn't include hardly any statements from the other people on the train.
Which is interesting because if Daniel Penney had just randomly walked up to some poor homeless guy and choked him to death intentionally and for no reason, then you'd think there'd be other people on the train that would be eager to talk about that experience and to talk about the horrible thing they witnessed Daniel Penney do.
But they didn't include any of that testimony because the media also knew.
That pretty much the entire train is on Daniel Penny's side.
All right, one other quick thing.
We've talked about colonization, so I think this is worth mentioning.
Kind of puts a cap on that conversation.
This is a report from CNN, a profile really, about a musical artist, a decolonization rapper.
And you already know this is right up my alley, because it brings all the things I love together.
Decolonization, rapping, etc.
Brings it all together.
So, this is what it says.
CNN reports, when Frank Wallen raps on stage, he's dripping head to toe in his culture.
His long, braided hair frames his face, and Lakota jewelry, gifted by relatives and fans, hangs from his ears, usually porcupine quills or buffalo bones, as hand-woven bracelets wrap around both wrists.
A beaded medallion beats against his chest as he sings, his voice reverberating with pain and anger, every lyric sizzling with the fury of unavenged injustice.
The Lakota rapper, born and raised on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota, tours the world, merging hip-hop and indigenous music into distinctive soul-stirring songs.
Wallum said, quote, I grew up in a place that used to be a literal death camp where they marched my tribe to die.
I was raised by survivors who could never talk about their trauma because they're still in survival mode.
Surrounded by survivors of the atrocities of colonial violence, the award-winning rapper says he has always carried with him centuries of their heartache.
Through music, he says, he found healing and the opportunity to take back the freedom American colonizers had stolen from his people.
And it goes on, this is a long, this is CNN, okay?
And this is a long profile on this guy.
Claiming that he's award-winning, he's touring the world.
Brilliant, poetic artist.
Speaking out against colonial injustice, bravely speaking out against alleged injustices that happened 200 years ago.
But let's listen to a little bit from this guy.
Of course, this is what this is all leading to, and this is what you all want to hear.
So here is, I believe this song is called Concentration Camp Blues.
And let's listen to a little bit of it.
[MUSIC]
By the way, that song has 12,000 views on YouTube in two years.
And so this is the guy that CNN gave a whole lengthy profile to.
Allegedly, a world-touring, revered, award-winning artist.
Well, I like the song because, for one reason only, which is that you don't often hear a recorder in a rap song.
And I don't think I've ever heard one in a rap song before.
And after hearing it in a song, I guess I realize why you don't usually hear them in songs.
But it does give me hope because the thing is that the recorder is the only instrument that I've ever somewhat successfully managed to play.
It's the only one.
And I mean, I can at least play Hot Cross Buns.
I can play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on the recorder.
So it gives my musical dreams.
My own musical dreams are reinvigorated.
This is who CNN gives a whole profile to on their site, even though the music is, I mean, obviously, objectively terrible.
But this is part of this process that I talk about, where on the left, they used to dominate culture, they used to dominate music, films, art in general, and they still do.
But I think that that domination is going to start to wane.
Because whereas they used to put the art, the quality of the art, above the message, now they've completely flipped it.
You know, and they're doing what the Christian music industry and film industry for so long had done, on the other side of it.
Putting stuff out, it's like you like the message, and so you pretend that the quality of the art, that it's high quality art, when actually everyone realizes that it isn't.
And now the left is making the same mistake, which I think ultimately is probably a good thing for the culture.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
The Real Brandon says, so we're talking to the Real Brandon, that's good.
Matt, just because the left is cheering on an evil, disgusting terrorist group doesn't mean you have to choose the other side.
It's the either-or fallacy.
The most consistent and moral thing you can do is condemn evil and the killing of innocent people, no matter which side does it.
Okay, a couple things.
Two things.
Number one, just saying, I condemn evil and whoever does it.
You might as well not say anything.
It's a totally useless thing to say, and it's designed to be useless.
You know, that's a way of taking a stand without actually taking any kind of stand whatsoever.
I don't like bad things.
That's my position on all this.
Great.
Good for you.
And in this case, your position doesn't even make any sense because you call, by your own telling, right?
You're calling one side an evil, disgusting terrorist group.
Well, I agree.
Why wouldn't I take sides against an evil, disgusting terrorist group?
By your own description.
Now, we say the word take sides, and it doesn't mean, you know, I've already said I don't want the United States to get involved in a world war.
So, that can mean different things, but in terms of like, who do you think's in the right and the wrong?
And also, it doesn't mean that, especially when we're talking about a war, Okay, there's never been a war where one side of it did nothing wrong whatsoever at any point, historically or in the process of executing the war.
Of course, that's not the case.
No one is saying this is like evil versus perfect.
That's not the point.
But there is one side that again, even by your own description, is evil.
And pointing that out and saying that is important.
And it also shouldn't be difficult.
Because as I said yesterday, it's a pretty simple equation, really.
When you parachute into a music festival and massacre everybody, you're the bad guy.
That's what the bad guys do.
Observatim says, "If judging people for living with their parents makes one human,
what on earth could Jesus have possibly meant when he said not to judge?"
That saying is rendered by modern Christians of no effect if living with your parents is worthy of judgment.
We already talked about the living with parents thing, as I've already said.
There is a setup in which you would live with your parents as an adult and have a kind of multi-generational household that I think is a very good thing and is, in fact, more traditional than what we consider to be the traditional setup of the nuclear family living on their own away from extended relatives.
But to the question of judging, broadly speaking, yeah, this is an important point.
Because you hear this from churches, too, all the time.
Jesus says, don't judge, so don't judge.
Well, like with anything else in the Bible, if you want to fully understand what's being said, it's important to understand what are the sentences before that and after that, what's the overall context.
Also, you have to keep in mind translations.
Okay, judge is an English word.
And so that word exactly did not appear in the original scripture.
And the point is that Jesus was not saying that we should never pass any judgments at all.
Because to judge is to, in English anyway, to judge is to discern, okay?
To judge is to distinguish between one thing and another thing.
To judge is to decide whether something is good or bad or, you know, is evil or praiseworthy.
This involves judgment.
The phrase judgment call, making a judgment call.
These are all things that we should do.
We can't help but doing because we are sentient human beings.
So obviously we should judge.
And we should make judgments about people.
We make literal judgments about people in the court of law.
We have people called judges.
And that's what they do.
So was Jesus saying we shouldn't do any of that?
We shouldn't make any judgments at all.
We should pretend everything's the same.
Obviously not.
What he says is to judge rightly.
To make proper judgments.
That's the point.
So yes, judge.
We should be judging all the time.
But you should make proper judgments.
And finally, Kunal says, Matt has a lot of bad takes, but his support for intergenerational homes might be the worst.
For someone who supports adventure and discovery, he's against the idea of children living on their own and experiencing the world.
The Columbus you love did not live with his parents.
No, I'm not against that at all.
What I'm saying is that the expectation that You know, kids leave the house at 18, and, you know, if you have multiple kids, you kind of spread out around the country, and you see your, then you have what we call your extended family now, which even that, you know, the phrase extended family is a pretty modern phrase.
In the past you wouldn't you wouldn't have heard a term like that because it would have had less meaning It's like all the family all stays together.
So extended versus regular families It was a distinction that would have made a lot of sense and now but now we have it We have your extended family and they're far off there and you see them every once in a while But for the most part you're cut off from them from their support and from being able to support them I don't just mean financially but I mean in every other sense What I'm saying is that that setup is is not superior to the actual traditional way of doing things, which is that families would stay together.
It doesn't mean they all stay in the exact same house, but maybe you stay in a homestead.
You stay at least in a community.
You're around each other.
You can support each other.
You can help each other.
It's not the way it works now.
And I think, and I'm all about, especially young adults and especially men in particular, getting out on their own for a time, learning the skills of how to take care of themselves, going out, taking some risks in the world, healthy risks.
I think probably the ideal, not everyone can do this, but if you were to map out the most ideal scenario for in particular a young man, It might be something like leaving the home in early young adulthood, going out on your own for a while, and then getting married, start having kids, and if you can, move back closer to family.
So, I think that's probably the best setup.
Jeremy's Chocolate is offering a special 25% discount just in time for Halloween.
We all know that woke candy companies out there think Frankenstein can become his own bride.
Well, that's why Jeremy's Chocolate launched our She-Her and He-Him bars, only one of which has nuts.
And what could be more fun to share than Jeremy's Chocolate in microaggression size?
That's right, don't miss out on our newest addition to Jeremy's anti-woke chocolate lineup.
This deal ends today, so make sure to get your order in to get 25% off.
Go to Jeremy'sChocolate.com and order now.
to get it in time for Halloween. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
In recent times, feminists have started to grapple with a very difficult question.
As we all know, feminism is a layered and nuanced ideology that always finds itself at the forefront of the most important and challenging discussions of the day.
So here's the quandary they're dealing with now.
How can a feminist woman be empowered While still being a materialistic cheap ass.
Is it possible to be a strong independent woman without also having to pay for dinner?
You know, this is the dilemma.
It's the great philosophical debate.
Feminists are in a difficult position because they've insisted for many years that they don't need no man, that they're a bunch of girl bosses, large and in charge.
They declare that the old codes of chivalry and patriarchal and paternalistic, you know, are patriarchal and paternalistic and they have to be abolished.
They shouted from the mountaintop that they are exactly equal to men, the same as men in every respect, and they certainly don't need a man to take care of them or provide for them.
They have growled, and they have shrieked, and they have made their voices heard.
And then, to their horror, many men started to take them seriously.
Men listened to these protestations, and they said, okay, well, if you say so.
As you wish.
You can have what you want.
Which means, among other things, that when the bill is put down on the table, many men will not instinctively reach for it anymore.
They will let the independent girl boss pay the tab, or at least pay half of it.
But feminists have recoiled at this development.
No, they cry.
We want to be independent, but not like this.
Not if it means I have to pay for my own Santa Fe salad at Chili's.
But how do they make this case?
Can they really become a damsel in distress as soon as the bill is placed on the table?
And then get right back to being empowered and progressive a few minutes later?
How does that work?
Well, different feminists have come up with different ways of grappling with this important question.
Here's one influencer on TikTok giving her answer.
Watch.
The thing that I have realized about this topic is that there are so many women that really do advocate for not going 50-50, right?
And for me, I definitely went through like my, well, I'm a feminist.
I shouldn't have an issue going 50-50 face, right?
When I was younger.
But recently I started to realize just how difficult it was accepting going 50-50 with men.
And I have come to the realization that it is because even as a feminist, it is the only benefit women reap out of the patriarchy.
A benefit we did not create the rules for.
Y'all did.
But it is still a benefit that women get from the patriarchy.
So whenever men start advocating for like, well, what about equality?
Pick up this check, or whatever.
When I hear that, it's like, you're literally trying to rid me of the only benefit I get out of the patriarchy.
The only.
Like, think about it for a second.
Is there any other benefit we get out of the patriarchy?
Let me step in there for a moment.
I'll answer your question, ma'am.
But first, I have to point out how, by your own logic anyway, this is the most pathetic stance I've ever seen anyone take.
Because by your telling, we are a patriarchal society, and the patriarchy is an abject evil, you say, and yet you wish to extract whatever benefits you can from it.
This thing is evil and terrible and should be dismantled, but I also want to reap its rewards.
This makes you significantly worse than the patriarchal men who, according to you, uphold an oppressive system, but at least, you know, we don't see it as oppressive.
You do see it that way, and yet you also uphold it, just so that you can get a free meal at the Cheesecake Factory.
So pathetic doesn't even begin to describe it.
But, to your question, is there any other benefit that you get out of what you call the patriarchy?
The answer is yes.
A few.
You know, there are a few.
Benefits like, I don't know, the house that you're currently sitting in.
Every bridge you've ever driven across.
Every car you've ever driven in.
Electricity, indoor plumbing, democracy, freedom.
Civilization itself.
Just to get the list started.
So all of these things were all largely invented, established, built, maintained by societies that you would call patriarchal.
So the patriarchy as you define it has given you basically everything of value in your entire life.
So what else has it given you?
Like everything.
Every single thing you like has been given to you by what you would describe as the patriarchy.
Other than that, sure, I guess it hasn't done much for you.
But TikTok isn't the only place where this debate is raging.
Over at the LA Times, they are grappling with the same issue.
A new column poses the question this way, should men pay on dates as reparations for the gender wage gap?
The writer Jean Guerrero explains, quote, for years, I split the bill on dates as a Latina from a lineage of women whose lives have been micromanaged by family patriarchs.
I thought I was breaking bad generational patterns by interacting with men as equals rather than as providers.
But recently I started getting pushback from some of my friends.
They argued that because of the persisting gender pay gap, it's actually now properly feminist to expect men to pay on first dates and contribute more financially in relationships.
One friend instructed me, quote, don't even think about reaching for your purse.
The thought of possibly coercing a man into paying for my dinner, however, just seemed wrong.
Still, this discussion did make me wonder, should I expect men to pay on dates as a form of reparations for generational harm?
Yes, the harm again of building every home and every bridge and every airplane, you know, that's what men are doing, fighting and dying in every war, keeping all the lights on, etc.
Such great harm that men have perpetrated against women.
Every society on earth would collapse in like five seconds without men doing all the things that men do.
All the things that men do and that men almost exclusively do, in fact.
But all of this somehow amounts to generational harm.
That's the argument.
But it's not an argument that every feminist buys.
Well, they buy the generational harm thing, but they don't buy that this relates to the issue of who pays at dinner.
The article continues, quote, the problem with framing being taken out to dinner by a man as a form of reparations is that it's privately consumed.
Juliet Williams, a UCLA gender studies professor, told me, it's not an accounting for injustice in any way that's visible or acknowledged.
We have to be careful not to just label anything that's personally advantageous as somehow politically justified.
But many women believe that in our unequal times, it's only fair for men to pay, and not just because men still out-earn women.
Women also tend to spend more on date prep, such as makeup and manicures, to meet female beauty standards.
Some women believe men should cover the costs of not only the dates, but transportation to and from.
In a viral TikTok video, LA resident Gabby Faye, 27, says, I expect a man to pay for the date, yes, the whole entire date.
That includes my Uber to the date and my Uber back to my house.
She told me she sees this as compensation for women's sacrifices in relationships.
It's also proof of serious interest.
I want to feel wanted, she said.
Now, the writer goes on to examine both sides of this crucial issue.
By the end, she's arrived at no particular conclusion.
You know, some women say that men should pay in order to make up for our many sins.
Others say that it isn't enough, you know, that the only reason we shouldn't do that is only because it couldn't possibly be enough to assuage our guilt for the patriarchy.
And then there are others who point out that women in many cases are doing better financially than men, and so the financial burden should shift over to them in those cases.
And nobody is sure what to do.
Everyone is very confused.
So, let me see if I can lend some clarity to the situation.
So, there are a few things going on here.
First, we see the propensity on the left to, in so many cases, dismantle something and then try to recreate kind of a simulacrum of that thing that they just destroyed.
So, they have no ideas of their own.
They have no real vision of any kind.
So, they often end up plagiarizing the very ideas that they oppose.
That's why many feminists have ended up right back where it started, expecting men to pay for dinner.
The difference is that now, the reasons behind this expectation, the underlying framework, is flimsy, and superficial, and ridiculous.
So in the past, men paid for dinner because it was considered a man's duty to provide, it was his place, it was his role.
There was dignity in it.
There was a long tradition behind it.
There was the noble and heroic concept of chivalry.
You know, all of that went into the fact that a man would clearly pay for dinner.
Well, feminism hates everything noble and heroic and masculine and traditional, so all of that had to go.
But it still wants free meals at Bonefish Grill, so the expectations of chivalry were reinstated without the philosophy of chivalry underlying them.
So now men are expected to pay, but not for noble and strong and clear and traditional reasons, but for whiny and weak and petty reasons.
We went from, it's a man's duty to provide, which is a strong and clear and positive and truly empowering vision, Of what the sexes are supposed to be doing?
To now it's, well you have to pay to heal my generational trauma.
Which is unclear and weak and resentful and petty and negative.
Feminism uprooted all of the trees from the forest and then tried to put the trees back without the roots.
But they're not trees anymore, they're just big logs sitting precariously on top of the soil.
Of course, not every feminist agrees that the expectations of chivalry should be reinstated without the chivalry itself.
Some say that men should not pay.
Some say it should be 50-50.
Some say payment should be apportioned based on income level.
But they all seem to agree that there is something missing.
You know, they're not satisfied.
And this is the case not just with paying for dinner.
I mean, the paying for dinner thing is a microcosm.
Of the confusion that has come to define pretty much every aspect of the male-female interaction.
Every aspect is now a source of uncertainty and debate.
Men and women don't know how to interact with each other anymore.
They don't know how to date each other.
They don't know what their expectations should be, and what their responsibilities are, and what expectations they're supposed to be fulfilling from the other person, and which expectations are reasonable or not.
They don't know any of that.
And these are all things that, again, up until feminism, these are things that people didn't worry about because it was all known.
So all of these things, in the dating world in particular, these sources of anxiety and the questions and I don't know what to do and I don't know what they're thinking, what you have to realize is that if you go back not that far into the past, these anxieties almost didn't exist at all because everybody knew what they were supposed to do.
They knew what their roles were.
But feminism tore all that to shreds.
And as always with the left, they replaced it with basically nothing.
This newfound freedom isn't making anybody happy.
It's only created anxiety and paralysis.
You know, we didn't have this problem under the old system with the old concept of gender roles.
Men knew what was expected of them.
Women knew what their own part was.
There was no awkwardness when the bill came.
And with this basic understanding of their own respective roles and responsibilities, they could move on and live their lives and get to know each other without the anxiety and the stilted, weird uncertainty that defines the male-female interaction in the modern age.
So thank you again, feminism.
You made everything worse and nothing better.
You didn't solve any problems, but you did manage to create a bunch of new problems that didn't exist before.
And for that reason, feminism is, once again, certainly not for the first time and certainly not for the last, cancelled.