Ep. 1359 - Why The Pro-Palestine Campus Protesters Are A Bunch Of Childish Cosplaying Phonies
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, police finally showed up to throw out the pro-Hamas protesters who had invaded and occupied a building at Columbia University. This was after the protesters demanded concessions from Columbia, including free food deliveries. Also, a bipartisan bill is being pushed by both parties in Congress to fight antisemitism. But there are some major problems with this legislation, which we'll discuss. And the Supreme Court refuses to block the enforcement of a law in Texas that forces porn companies to verify the ages of their viewers. A lot of creepy weirdos who want kids to be exposed to porn have objected to this law.
Ep.1359
- - -
DailyWire+:
Introducing Emerson Premium Multivitamin for Men: https://bit.ly/3WlNWgs
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
Constitution Wealth - Go to http://www.ConstitutionWealth.com/Matt and sign up for a FREE consultation today!
Good Ranchers - Secure your price shield until 2026 and get an extra 10% off with promo code WALSH at https://www.goodranchers.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, police finally showed up to throw out the pro-Hamas protesters who had invaded and occupied a building at Columbia University.
This was after the protesters demanded concessions from Columbia, including free food deliveries.
Also, a bipartisan bill is being pushed by both parties in Congress to fight anti-Semitism, supposedly, but there are some major problems with this legislation.
Which we'll discuss.
And the Supreme Court refuses to block the enforcement of a law in Texas that forces porn companies to verify the ages of their viewers.
A lot of creepy weirdos who want kids to be exposed to porn have objected to this law and they're all wrong.
I'll explain why.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
If you owe back taxes or still have unfiled returns, they can really weigh on your mind,
especially when the IRS has become more determined than ever.
Their chief data and analytics officer revealed that the IRS is focused on an enforcement project with an average return on investment of about $6 for every $1 spent.
They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't yet filed their returns.
Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code and will fight for you.
With a record of negotiating over a billion dollars in tax relief for their clients, their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue.
Whether you owe $10 or $10,000 or $10 million, they can help.
Even if you don't have all your personal or business records from over the years, they can get you filed up to date.
Facing the IRS without a professional is not a smart move.
Contact Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate your tax debt.
Call today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Walsh.
They'll give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt today.
That's tnusa.com slash Walsh.
Back in late April of 2015, almost exactly nine years ago, riots erupted in Baltimore, Maryland over the demise of a career criminal named Freddie Gray, who died while in police custody.
Now, a few people remember his name today, but at the time, he was the most recently canonized BLM saint and the guy whose death everybody was pretending to mourn.
The most memorable thing about that moment in history, though, isn't Freddie Gray himself or even the riots.
But what the then mayor of the city said the day after, the day after, as the media put it, peaceful protests took a violent turn, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake stood in front of news cameras and told the world that she had decided to give, quote, those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.
By her own testimony, she had instructed law enforcement to stand by and give rioters space to destroy their own community.
To let off some steam and vent their frustrations by committing crimes.
At the time, it was shocking that a political leader would openly allow that kind of behavior and even admit that she was allowing it.
It also cast the riots in an even more bizarrely childish light.
The rioters were now like children having a temper tantrum in the grocery store, and the mayor was the overly lenient pushover parent allowing the scene to continue.
But as Mayor Rawlings Blake discovered, The problem with giving space to destroy is that eventually you will want them to stop destroying.
And then at that point, you'll have to do exactly the thing that you could have and should have done the moment that the lawlessness started.
And when you do that, the rioters will not, at that point, thank you for having given them more time and space than they ever deserved.
You know, whenever you decide to finally enforce the law, they will claim to be oppressed, just as they would have if you had enforced the law from the beginning.
So, why don't you just enforce it from the beginning?
This is one of the many problems with the space-to-destroy strategy, and yet city leaders all across the country in the years since have adopted the same strategy.
And in recent weeks, as you've heard, university officials have embraced the space destroy approach as well.
And last night, that decision, as it always does, inevitably, came to a head.
After allowing leftist pro-Hamas demonstrators to maintain an illegal encampment for many days, Columbia University finally brought in the NYPD to arrest the criminals.
A decision that was only made after they broke into and occupied a building on campus.
When the police arrived in full force with riot shields and zip ties and buses to arrest and detain the demonstrators, it didn't take very long before the situation was brought under control and the authorities had wrestled back the property that had been illegally seized.
There were many videos of this operation as it unfolded.
Often posted by leftist groups who expected the public to be shocked and horrified by the images.
Here's one example.
This is a video posted by a group called National Students for Justice in Palestine.
Watch.
Back it up!
Back it up!
That means you!
Back up!
Back up!
Get back!
Get back!
Back off, back off, get back, get back.
Get back or get arrested, get back or get arrested.
Okay, so they posted that along with the caption, SWAT and
SRG have invaded Columbia's campus and are entering Hinn's Hall.
They have forced out all the press to prevent recordings of their brutality.
Thank you.
But as you saw in their own video, there was no brutality.
It was literally just the police shouting, get back.
That was the brutality.
They were raising their voices.
Oh, dear God.
Really, this was just the police enforcing the law, and they were not invading anything.
It's the pro-Hamas protesters that had illegally invaded a building, a building that isn't called Hinns Hall, by the way, but rather Hamilton Hall, because the protesters had not only burglarized and occupied the building, but also attempted to rename it.
They expected us to be deeply disturbed and outraged on their behalf that their act of organized burglary and trespassing is no longer allowed to continue.
And indeed, many on the left, including prominent politicians who spoke out, did express outrage.
According to them, these protesters should be allowed to do whatever they want indefinitely and break whatever laws they want to break for as long as they want to break them without facing any consequences whatsoever.
Like, that is their actual position.
Nonetheless, dozens of the criminals were arrested, and now they will face not only criminal charges, but expulsion.
They will be then thousands of dollars in debt with no college degree.
Which means they'll be in only slightly worse shape than the people who are thousands of dollars in debt with a college degree.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, the illegal encampment on UCLA's campus was also invaded, but not by police.
Here's the report from Breitbart.
Roughly 100 pro-Israel vigilantes stormed the Palestine Solidarity encampment
at the University of California Los Angeles late Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning,
sparking battles with activists.
The raid occurred after nearly a week in which UCLA not only allowed the encampment
to occupy the main plaza on campus, but also allowed pro-Palestinian activists
to run their own security, barring access to students and the public.
Here's what this quote unquote raid looked like.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Where's Jill?
Hey, Jill, don't.
Go.
Hey, Jill.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
What a trooper.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, so, I mean, not exactly, you know, this is not exactly Braveheart.
The battle that we're seeing here is, it sounds a lot worse than it is when you see it on video.
But nonetheless, this is what happens when you grant one group special privileges to break the law and all of the rules.
Not only break the rules, but come up with their own rules.
When you allow them to seize a part of the campus and decide who's allowed to walk through it.
That sort of wildly unjust, disproportionate situation can only continue for so long before everybody else, the people expected to abide by the law, have simply had enough of the double standard and decided to take matters into their own hands.
If you don't want that to happen, and you definitely shouldn't want it to happen, then enforce the rules equally and hold everyone to the same standard.
Which means that nobody should be allowed to maintain any kind of illegal encampment on the campus at all.
Keep this in mind.
When pro-life protesters sat peacefully outside of an abortion clinic for a few hours on one single morning, the Biden administration sent armed federal agents to their homes to drag them away in handcuffs, and then convicted them of felonies, and now wants to send them to prison for 10 years.
When January 6th protesters trespassed in the Capitol, the federal government responded by spending the next three years hunting them down one by one and tossing them in prison.
So when the left objects to how these pro-Hamas protesters are being treated, it's not because these protesters are being handled harshly.
No, they're being handled with kid gloves, especially compared to what protesters and demonstrators on the right experience.
So that's not their problem.
Their problem is that the left believes that their protesters, the ones on their side, should be given free reign to do whatever they want.
And if they are stopped from doing anything at all, then they are automatically oppressed.
This is the sense of entitlement obviously shared by the protesters themselves, which is what led to this unintentionally hilarious moment at Columbia University yesterday afternoon, a few hours before the police raid.
An unofficial spokeswoman for the demonstrators gave a press conference where she made a number of demands.
Now, according to reporting from Noah Pollack, a contributor to the Free Beacon, this woman's name is Johanna King Slutsky, and according to her bio, Johanna is working on a dissertation on, quote, Fantasies of Limitless Energy in the Transatlantic Romantic Imagination from 1760 to 1860.
And her goal, she explains, is to quote, "Write a prehistory of metabolic rift,
Marxist term for the disruption of energy circuits caused by industrialization under capitalism."
Now, it's a shame to think that the world will never get to read this full dissertation,
now that Johanna is probably going to be expelled.
We'll have to continue on somehow without the vital information that she was going to provide us about the fantasies of limitless energy or whatever.
But in any case, now that you know what sort of person we're talking about, you will not be surprised by the demands that she made during this press conference.
Listen.
Protestors have voiced their intention to remain at Hint Hall until Columbia concedes to Quad's three demands, which are divestment, financial transparency, and amnesty.
Resistance is justified in the movement for liberation.
Liberators acting in solidarity with Palestine continue to hold themselves to a higher standard than Colombia.
I cannot stress this enough.
A higher standard than Colombia.
This university has repeatedly endangered its students by instituting a police state with military-style checkpoints Repressing and isolating students on campus, calling armed riot cops for the largest mass arrests on campus since 1968, and weaponizing food insecurity and houselessness in order to escalate and use as leverage in negotiations.
Colombia has forced protesters to escalate by contributing to a genocide while refusing to follow the baseline standards of conduct that make negotiations possible.
Okay, so those are the demands.
They say that they're willing to negotiate, they will enter into negotiations, but only if Columbia University follows the rules that the burglars and trespassers have set out.
Now, of course, the problem for the group is that they have absolutely no leverage whatsoever.
They can simply be removed from the building and arrested at any time.
They have no leverage, they have no power.
Nothing but the privilege they've been granted to cosplay as revolutionaries.
It can be revoked at any moment.
And it was, shortly after these demands were made.
But the most striking and hilarious part of this bizarre press conference was when she made a plea for, and I quote, humanitarian aid.
Why should the university be obligated to provide food to people who've taken over a building?
Well, first of all, we're saying that they're obligated to provide food to students who pay for a meal plan here.
But you mentioned that there was a request that food and water be brought in.
To allow it to be brought in?
I mean, well, I guess it's ultimately a question of what kind of community and obligation Columbia feels it has to its students.
Do you want students to die of dehydration and starvation or get severely ill, even if they disagree with you?
If the answer is no, then you should allow basic... I mean, it's crazy to say because we're on an Ivy League campus, but this is like basic humanitarian aid we're asking for.
Like, could people please have a glass of water?
But they did put themselves in that...
Nobody's asking them to bring anything.
in that situation and in that position.
So it seems like you're sort of saying, we want to be revolutionaries,
we want to take over this building, now would you please bring us food and water?
Nobody's asking them to bring anything.
We're asking them to not violently stop us from bringing in basic humanitarian aid.
So just to be completely clear here, the humanitarian aid they're requesting
is Chipotle deliveries.
So the next time you order a burrito bowl on DoorDash, remember, you're not ordering lunch.
You're requesting humanitarian aid.
So these protesters committed burglary and trespassing, they hold themselves up in a building where they didn't belong and had no right to be, they barricaded the doors and refused to come out, and then demanded that free food be delivered to them so that they don't, as they claim they're on the verge of doing, starve to death.
This is the level of pathological, insane, delusional, narcissistic entitlement that we're dealing with here.
It's exactly the mentality that these college campuses intentionally instill and which is now being wielded against them.
But most of all, this goes to show just how fake all of this is.
I hope that's the first thing you notice when you watch all this.
It's just so fake.
That person you just saw there on camera is just incredibly fake.
Now, you could say these kids are radical leftists, and that's certainly true.
You can say that they're anti-American, and that's true too, which is why they've taken down American flags, replaced them with Palestinian flags, they've shot a death to America, and so on.
You can say that they're anti-white, And they see Israel as a vehicle of whiteness and that's why they hate it so much?
That's true.
You could say that some of these protesters actually are anti-Semites who hate Jews as a group.
And that's obviously true.
We've heard enough from some of them to know that.
But before any of that, what we must say about these protesters and their protests is that it is all fake.
Phony.
Pretend.
It is all one big performance.
The average American today, the average American, lives a life of such comfort and luxury that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt would look at them with envy.
Ivy League students have lives significantly more luxurious and comfortable than that.
You know, it's estimated that about 100 billion humans have lived on Earth since the dawn of the species.
Those kids setting up encampments and demanding free Panera Bread have more wealth and privilege than almost all of those 100 billion humans.
They quite easily have it better than 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived.
These kids have never experienced hardship, They've never experienced persecution.
They've never experienced suffering or sacrifice.
They don't even know what those words mean.
Most of them haven't even experienced being told no about anything, ever.
Like they've never heard the word.
And this has made them not only entitled beyond all imagining, but also bored and dull and desperate to find meaning in pretended oppression.
They have no religion, most of them, no belief in God, no source of meaning in their lives, and they subscribe to an ideology that paints all the world and all of history as a struggle between persecutor and persecuted.
They want to be in the latter group, if only so they can feel better about themselves and also experience some excitement in a life that otherwise consists of sitting around and staring at screens while all their needs are met at the snap of a finger.
Their whole worldview is a part of this game of pretend.
It's not just this protest.
It's everything.
Everything these people say and do.
You know, they walk around every day in a fantasy world.
One where they are the revolutionaries fighting back against a racist, white supremacist, handmaid's tale system that seeks to annihilate and enslave them.
And they maintain this fantasy and double down on it even as the system affords them every privilege it possibly can.
In fact, the more privileges they're given, the deeper they must immerse themselves into this fantasy role-playing game so that they can maintain the fiction.
Now, of course, if they really desired oppression and suffering, they could go find it.
There's always the option to actually forego their comfortable lives and move to a part of the world where they will experience the sort of deprivation and persecution that they spend their whole lives pretending to struggle against.
But they don't want the fantasy to become real any more than, you know, somebody fighting zombies in an arcade game wants to look over and find himself surrounded by the monsters in real life.
They want to keep it all inside the game.
Inside the virtual reality fantasy.
Which is what all of this really is.
Until eventually, a piece of reality breaks through the barrier and imposes itself on them.
And in this case, they find themselves arrested and expelled from school.
You know, the good news is that now they have a real misfortune to complain about.
The bad news is they brought it on themselves.
And the worst news of all is that they will almost certainly learn nothing from the experience.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
There are a lot of great companies out there that aren't shoving diversity and inclusion initiatives down the throats of their employees or their customers.
Maybe you're already doing business with some of these.
That's great.
Maybe you're boycotting companies who have made headlines by acquiring the latest trans influencer as their spokesperson.
That's even better.
But have you given much thought to where your money is currently invested?
A lot of big wealth management companies make billions of dollars investing your money however they want.
Wherever they want, even if that means investing in businesses who don't care about your values or even actively oppose your values.
Align your portfolio with your principles today with my friends at Constitution Wealth.
Constitution Wealth is the Patriots' choice in wealth management.
They'll help you build a solid investment plan while reducing your investments in the ESGs and DEIs, companies that care more about global warming and diversity ratios than they do about the return on your investment.
With Constitution Wealth, you can start using your shareholder votes to support conservative action.
Fight the culture war with your most valuable weapon, your investments.
Help build the parallel economy by working with an investment firm composed of professionals who are patriots like you.
Go to constitutionwealth.com slash matt and sign up for a free consultation today.
That's constitutionwealth.com slash matt.
CNN has this report.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on the bipartisan Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a vote that comes amid heightened concerns over anti-Semitism with Israel at war with Hamas.
Pro-Palestinian protests have sprung up at college campuses across the country.
Supporters of the legislation say it will help combat anti-Semitism on college campuses, but opponents say it overreaches and threatens to chill free speech.
The bill would mandate that when the Department of Education enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, it uses a definition of anti-Semitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
New York Republican Mike Lawler, who introduced the legislation, said in a statement, it's critical that we crack down on anti-Semitic hate within our own country.
The American Civil Literaries Union, however, has called on lawmakers to oppose the bill.
In a letter to representatives, the ACLU wrote, "Federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic
discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities.
HR 6090 is therefore not needed to protect against anti-Semitic discrimination.
Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly
equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism."
Okay, so already I don't really like any of this.
I don't like it because, first of all, I oppose anything that even resembles a hate speech law.
But then, on the other side, we have the ACLU pretending to care about free speech, when in most cases they're diametrically opposed to free speech.
And they're even criticizing the bill because it supposedly is redundant, except You know, this same organization has come out in favor of all kinds of anti-hate bills and laws that both chill free speech and prohibit things that are already prohibited.
So, you know, I don't like the sound of the law.
I also don't like, I can't stand the opponents we've heard from so far.
So I don't like anything here.
But before I say anything else about it, let's try to get the full story.
The bill would mandate that the Department of Education use the definition of anti-Semitism provided by something called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Now, why are we adopting a decree from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance into law?
Why should a definition that they came up with be engraved in stone?
And what is their definition?
I've actually read several different articles about this, including the one from CNN there, about they're going to have a new definition of anti-Semitism in the law.
None of the articles say what that is.
How do you report on this bill about the new definition of anti-Semitism without even telling us what it is?
Isn't that the main question here?
But they don't, so let's go to the text of the bill and see if we can learn more.
I mean, surely the bill itself will tell us what the definition is, right?
So let me read a little bit from the bill.
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the United States as impacting Jewish students in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Anti-Semitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of anti-Semitism.
Now, what is the actual definition of antisemitism?
I'm still looking for that.
I'm skimming through it right now.
For purpose of this act, the term definition of antisemitism means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26 by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State, and includes the contemporary examples of antisemitism identified in the IHRA definition.
Okay, and it's a short bill, and looking through it, that's basically what it says.
So if you perhaps noticed, the bill wants to update the definition of anti-Semitism, but it doesn't actually say what the new definition is.
And you can go look for yourself.
This is a bill that updates the definition of anti-Semitism.
But the bill itself does not tell you what that definition is, which is crazy, right?
So we've now read an article about a bill changing the definition of anti-Semitism, and the bill itself, which does the change, and we still don't know what the definition actually is.
They refer to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and its definition as if like we all know that off the top of our head, as if they will, as if we're all saying, oh yeah, oh yeah, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Sure, I remember that, of course, them.
Now I must admit that I have no idea what this organization is or what definition they came up with or why in the hell anything they said should have any legal weight whatsoever.
So let's go to their website to see if we can get more clarity.
So this is the third place we have to go, just to figure out what exactly is happening here.
And once we do that, you go to the website, and then you look around, and you'll find a page on antisemitism.
And that page, and you have to scroll down that page a little bit, and then finally you'll get to a definition.
And here's what it is.
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.
Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Okay.
Well, actually, as far as definitions go, that seems fine.
But why...
Yeah, anti-semitism is hatred towards Jews.
And if you hate Jews collectively for being Jews, then you're anti-semitic.
Sure, I think we could all agree with that.
I mean, what else would anti-semitism mean if it doesn't mean that?
But why, like, why does that need to be clarified?
Isn't that we all understand that that's what anti-semitism is?
Why do we need a new law?
And why does the law need to cite this particular group for that very obvious definition?
Well, I think it's because, you may recall, the bill also says that the legal definition should include this organization's, quote, contemporary examples of anti-Semitism.
So it's not just, so they have the broad definition.
Anti-Semitism is hating Jewish people.
Sure, of course that's what it is.
But the bill says part of the definition is the examples that this organization provides.
So we have to scroll down a little bit further to find those.
And let's go through some of these.
Here are the examples of antisemitism.
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the names of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Sure.
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing of Jews.
Antisemitic.
Obviously.
But it continues.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such, as Jews as such, or the power of Jews as collective, such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis.
Accusing the Jews as a people or Israel as a state of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.
E.g.
by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using symbols and images associated with classical anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Okay.
And there it is.
So, the definition itself seems reasonable.
The examples, which are also given the force of law by this legislation, go way, way, way beyond the simple meaning of the definition.
And this is where we get to the problems.
Because, you know, stereotyping Jews, for example, they say, well, that's anti-Semitic, and they want to put that into law.
But it's not.
Not necessarily.
There are stereotypes about every group of people, and believing those stereotypes or repeating them is not necessarily hateful towards that group.
Okay?
To begin with, we all have stereotypical beliefs about groups that are not our own.
And we might have stereotypical beliefs about our own groups, but every person on the planet who has ever lived He has beliefs about other groups of people, sort of generalities that you believe to be true about that group.
It doesn't make you racist, necessarily.
It doesn't make you anti-Semitic.
It doesn't make you bigoted.
It just makes you a person.
And even if those stereotypes are wrong, even if they're both wrong and insulting, they're not necessarily bigoted.
Because it might just be that you really think that.
This might just be a generalization that you personally have observed to be true, and maybe you're wrong, maybe you're right.
Doesn't make you a bigot.
So, for example, is it actually true that Asians in general tend to be bad drivers?
That's a stereotype.
I actually don't know if it's true.
I haven't checked the data.
I don't know if there is any data that would confirm or refute that.
I don't know.
But if you earnestly happen to believe that most Asians happen to be bad drivers, like maybe in your own life you've observed that anecdotally, and you've drawn conclusions based on your anecdotal evidence, that doesn't mean you hate Asians.
It could just mean that based on your observations, that claim seems to be true from your perspective, even if it isn't true.
You could just think that it is.
That still doesn't make you guilty of anti-Asian hate.
I'm a person of Irish descent.
A stereotype of Irish people is that they have an exorbitant affinity for alcohol, especially whiskey.
Well, I mean, that one probably is true.
But if you happen to think that about Irish people, I'm not going to accuse you of hating Irish people.
Whether it's true or not.
And this logic applies to all groups, and Jewish people are included in that.
But the most concerning thing here is that the examples of anti-Semitism, which again, this bill wants to codify into law, the examples conflate Jews and Israel.
Okay, making certain critical statements about Israel and Israeli policy is anti-Semitic, it says, and that is just wrong.
And codifying that into law is pure madness.
Codifying into law that, like, you should be able as an American to make any critical statement of any government on the planet, including your own, and any foreign government, and say any statement you want.
Again, even if it's not true.
Now, do I think that the Israeli government is akin to the Nazis carrying out a genocidal agenda?
No.
Could a person believe that?
Could a person come to believe that about the Israeli government without hating all Jewish people?
Yes, of course they could.
The government is a political entity.
Its policies are products of that political entity.
You can have any opinion at all about a government without being a bigot against anybody.
The same way that you could make unflattering statements about the government of Uganda without hating Ugandans.
Or especially without hating black people in general.
So, you can think the Israeli government is completely wrong in everything that it does.
And if you think that, then you're certainly anti-Israeli government.
You might even be anti-Israel.
But that doesn't make you anti-Jews in general.
Like, you might just happen to believe that Israeli policy is wrong.
Whether you're right or wrong for thinking that, the idea that you can't think it without also hating Jews is, again, simply false.
And enshrining that into law is just crazy.
It is just crazy.
But it gets worse, because the final example says this.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
That's also anti-Semitism.
Well, wait a second.
So now we can't conflate Jews and Israel, but half of these examples do exactly that.
So to hold Jews responsible for the actions of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic.
But at the same time, if you are critical of the actions of the State of Israel, you hate all Jews.
So you can't conflate them this way, but you can conflate them that way.
Doesn't make any sense.
One minute we're told that if we criticize Israeli policy, we're Jew haters.
The next minute we're told that if we conflate Jews and Israel, we're Jew haters.
Like, which is it?
How can it be both?
It can't be.
And all of this is just so, it's so unnecessary.
Total unforced error by any Republican involving themselves in this.
None of it is needed.
We don't need any new special anti-Semitism laws, we don't need anything like that.
We don't need to expand the definition of anti-Semitism, we don't need to change it, we don't need anything like that.
Because if what you're worried about primarily is what's happening on college campuses, Well, guess what?
As we saw at Columbia, you can just enforce the actual laws that already exist.
Laws that have nothing to do with ideologies, worldviews, bigotry, anything.
You can just enforce the actual laws.
Laws against burglary.
Laws against trespassing.
Laws against vandalism.
Laws against loitering.
Laws against setting up illegal encampments.
Laws against inciting violence.
Laws against making direct physical threats against people.
Those are all laws that exist.
You enforce all of those laws, and there is no problem.
We wouldn't even be talking about what's happening on college campus.
The most you would see is you would have college kids out on campus, like, holding signs, and then going home at night.
And that's not a problem.
Who cares if they do that?
It only becomes a problem when you add in all of the criminal activity on top of it.
But you can crack down on that criminal activity without any new piece of legislation.
There's no new piece of legislation that we need to enable you to do that.
So I find this very frustrating.
Okay.
Reuters says this.
The US Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to block a Texas law requiring online age verification in order to access pornographic websites in a case pitting the Republican-led state's effort to keep adult content away from minors against constitutional free speech protections.
With no publicly noted dissents, the justices denied a request by a trade group representing adult entertainment performers and other challengers to the law to put on hold a lower court's ruling that the measure likely did not violate the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment safeguards against government interference with freedom of speech.
The 2023 law requires any website whose content is more than a third sexual material harmful to minors to require all users, including adults, to submit personally identifying information verifying that they're at least 18 years old to gain access.
Several other states have enacted similar legislation.
This was challenged, of course, by the ACLU and others, including Pornhub and XX.com are also among the plaintiffs.
You know, speaking of contradictions, I love this move from the defenders of the porn industry.
On the one hand, they tell us that laws protecting children from porn will be totally ineffective.
That's also in this article.
They say that it's not effective because it can be bypassed and so it doesn't do anything.
So on one hand, they say that These laws are ineffective and won't actually prevent anyone from accessing porn.
On the other hand, they tell us that it's a draconian assault on free speech and will stifle free expression.
Like, if the first claim is true, then what's even the problem?
What's the problem?
From your perspective, what's the problem?
If it's having no effect on free speech anyway, then what do you care?
But in fact, these laws do have an effect.
The porn industry does take a hit when underage children are prevented or at least hindered from accessing pornography.
So what does that tell you?
Pornhub has disabled, they've disabled all access to their site in Texas over this law.
And again, what does that tell you?
I mean, if they can't, if they cannot, what they're saying is that if they can't allow children on the site, Then they figure they might as well just shut down business completely in the state.
So what do we glean from that?
Well, I'll tell you what.
The porn industry has made a lot of money.
A lot, a lot of money, by distributing this kind of content to minors.
That's a huge part of their customer base, it's part of their business model, and they know it.
And that's why they oppose these laws so stridently, and it's why they'll even shut down operation in the state if you prevent them from distributing content to minors, because it's like such a major part of their customer base, there's no point of even being in business anymore.
It's like if you passed a law saying that Fox News has to cut off access to boomers.
Like, no more boomers are allowed to watch Fox News.
Well, if you do that, then Fox News is just going to shut down, because they say, well, what's the point?
That's like my whole customer base.
There's no one else to talk to.
That's it.
And it's a similar thing with the porn industry and underage kids, as much as they claim otherwise.
Is a major part of their customer base and if you take that away then Then they might as well not even be in business So Just to reiterate some points.
I made it before about this first of all We already require age verification for every other adult oriented product And nobody objects to any of that.
Nobody objects to the idea that you should have to show an ID to purchase alcohol, or to gamble in person or online, or to buy or consume anything else that's supposed to be for adults only.
Nobody objects.
These laws are not singling the porn industry out.
They aren't treating the porn industry any differently.
You know, now I personally think that we should treat the porn industry differently.
I think the porn industry shouldn't even exist, in my estimation.
But that's my personal view.
And that's not what these laws are doing.
These laws are simply bringing the porn industry into line with every other industry.
All that the law is saying to the porn industry is, you aren't special, you have to abide by the same rules as everybody else, you have an adult-oriented product, and so you have to make sure that the people consuming your product are actually adults.
That's all it's doing.
And this has nothing to do with free speech also.
Like, you don't have the free speech right to distribute porn to children.
That part shouldn't need to be explained.
And porn in general has nothing to do with free speech.
And why is that?
Because speech is a form of communication.
That's what speech is.
It's not that hard.
We act like defining a word like speech is so difficult.
We've had to debate it for decades.
What is speech?
How do you define speech?
It's actually not hard.
Speech is communication.
That's what speech is.
If you're communicating something, then you're engaging in speech.
Okay, now there are some forms of speech, even, things that qualify as speech that shouldn't be allowed, like threatening violence against somebody, but that is speech.
Okay, so if you're communicating something, if you're conveying a message of some kind, then you are engaged in speech.
Talking is communication.
Singing is communication.
Writing, putting a statement on a picket sign.
Art communicates, right?
But porn is sex on camera.
It does not convey meaning.
If something is not designed to convey meaning, then it's not speech.
Nobody watches porn and says to themselves, hmm, what are the artists trying to say to us here?
What are they conveying?
What are they trying to say?
Nobody does that.
Okay, nobody in the history of porn consumption has ever consumed porn that way.
Nobody's ever watched a porn and said, what are they, what's the message?
What are they communicating?
No one has looked at a, you know, a woman, you know, in porn and said, look, she's trying to communicate with me.
It's never happened.
And again, everyone, this is the kind of playing dumb, you know, the defenders of porn are constantly playing dumb about everything.
And they know that they are.
You know, all of their objections to having age revocation, all of that is playing dumb.
They understand everything.
They understand that obviously they should be required to verify ages.
The only reason why adults don't want that is because they don't care about the kids in the first place.
But mainly it's because they want to have cheap, well not even cheap because this wouldn't cost anything, they want to have immediate access to porn without being inconvenienced in their pursuit of masturbatory material.
And also, they don't want to be embarrassed.
Like, they don't want the embarrassment of having to give an ID or having to give a credit card or whatever.
But, you know, your desire to find masturbation material in a way that is quick and easy and doesn't embarrass you, like, that is not a concern that overrides the concern of protecting children from this material.
Sorry.
You're gonna be a little embarrassed?
Well, you should be, because it's, you know, you should be.
It's an embarrassing thing.
And before internet pornography...
Existed like if you wanted to obtain porn you had to be embarrassed Like you got to go to go to the gas station and be one of the guys That gets the magazine that used to be in plastic, you know behind all the other magazines and you have to actually Reach over and grab that magazine and go to the counter and pay for it and feel like a kind of pathetic dirty person Doing it and you know, that's and that's how you feel.
It should feel because it's like a pathetic thing but anyway That's all playing dumb.
And then on the free speech thing, too.
Everyone who claims, well, porn is art.
It communicates.
Oh, shut up.
Shut up.
You don't think that.
Nobody does.
That's not what it is.
Porn is prostitution.
It's sex for money.
That's what it is.
And it's not speech.
And should not enjoy any of the protections that speech enjoys.
[MUSIC]
Who doesn't love a good comeback story, especially when it's my favorite meat company bringing back
their price lock Yes, it's true.
Good Rancher's Price Lock Guarantee is back, offering exclusive price lock on 100% American meat.
This is your last chance to subscribe and have Good Rancher secure your pricing, shielding you from inflation until 2026.
Subscribe to any of their meat boxes and secure your price against inflation for the next 18 months.
GoodRanchers.com is where I get the most tender, flavorful meat with options like beef, chicken, pork, and wild-caught seafood.
They have something for even the pickiest of eaters.
What I really love about Good Ranchers is their commitment to transparency.
They believe that you have the right to know exactly what's in your food, They're amazing supporters of this show, so go support them.
Take the mystery out of all the meat you buy.
Right now, when you go to GoodRanchers.com and use promo code WALSH, you'll get their exclusive price shield and an additional 10% off your order.
This is the last week to secure the best price on meat until 2026.
But you gotta go to GoodRanchers.com and use my code WALSH.
That's GoodRanchers.com with promo code WALSH today.
First comment says, Matt, you sweet summer child.
I guarantee your dad had porn mags.
Maybe you just weren't smart enough to find them.
Well, sorry, I don't know what to tell you, but we didn't have porn magazines in the house growing up.
We just didn't.
Sorry.
I don't know what else to say.
And I love these responses from men like this.
And anytime the subject of porn comes up, you always get these responses.
They simply refuse to believe that there could be any man who doesn't watch porn.
They refuse to believe it.
They really cannot believe it.
They can't wrap their minds around it.
It is inconceivable that anyone could accomplish not watching porn.
They cannot understand it.
And so if you claim, if you make that claim, they see it as, yeah, it's like you might as well claim that you can fly.
You might as well claim that you've stepped on the surface of Mars.
That is honest to God how they see it.
And look, you can tell yourself that to make yourself feel better.
That's fine.
But that's a you problem.
That is a reflection of you.
I'm sorry to inform you, it is actually, although I'm not actually sorry to inform you, It is actually extremely possible to not watch or consume porn.
I don't.
Okay?
It is, it's not only possible, it's actually, it's really not that difficult.
Now, if you're, if you're stuck in, if you're in the midst of the compulsion, and I, I hesitate to call it an addiction for, I'm not going to open that can of worms again, although I guess I just did.
If you're in the midst of what I would call a compulsion, to break free of that can be difficult.
I'm not minimizing that.
But if you are outside of that compulsion, living a lifestyle free of that kind of smut, it's not that difficult.
It isn't.
And so it really isn't like this If you hear from a man who says, yeah, I don't watch porn, you might think it sounds like he's bragging about it.
Not only is he making some sort of wild claim, but if it's even true that he's bragging about some major accomplishment, but it's not a major accomplishment.
And I think that it's important to say that, because although if you're in the midst of the compulsion and looking at porn all the time, to hear another man say, like, I don't watch it.
It's just not a part of my life.
It's not.
To hear that might make you feel bad.
Might make you feel worse.
It's not meant to make you feel bad or make you feel worse.
It's good to hear it, I think.
It's actually encouraging and empowering because you know that it is possible.
And it's maybe not all that different from someone who lives a physically healthy life.
Being free of porn, that means you're living a mentally and spiritually healthy life.
Let's say you're someone who's very fit and you go to the gym a lot and eat healthy.
You live a physically healthy life and living a physically, mentally, spiritually healthy life like that's obviously all that together is the ideal and they do kind of go hand in hand.
But someone who's living a life like that can say that if you're in that habit and you're living that lifestyle and that's how you live and that's what you do and it's just part of your life, it's actually not that hard.
Not only is it not hard, but it's you enjoy living that way.
You wouldn't want to live any other way.
Now, on the other hand, if you're in a habit of overeating, and you're kind of living a slovenly, lazy life, and you have a bad diet, and you're overweight and all that, and you have this compulsion to overeat, to break free of that, getting out of that, can be difficult.
But once you get out of it, and you develop better habits, it's not...
So difficult anymore.
And I think to know that should be a source of inspiration, not something that makes you feel defeated, but quite the opposite.
All right.
Emerald says, I hate the blaming the parents bit.
From a parent that tried everything to help his child, the one thing that you cannot do is keep your eyes on them 100%.
Children sometimes will do what they want to do, knowing that if they get caught, there are consequences.
They're willing to take the chance or do not care if they are caught.
That's true.
You know, but there's a certain, here's the thing, there's a, and we talked yesterday about the kids, four teenagers who were killed in a car accident after stealing a car and getting in a high-speed police chase and then crashing the car while the cops were trying to stop them.
And then it turns out that three of the kids have active arrest warrants, two of them have ankle monitors on already.
And I said that that is a reflection of poor parents.
Like, don't blame the cops, obviously.
You've got to blame anybody, aside from the kids themselves, who engage in this reckless behavior.
Blame the parents.
Now, you're right.
I agree with you that blaming the parents for everything isn't valid.
Sometimes it's kind of a lazy way out.
It's like the easy answer for everything is, well, I blame the parents.
But, and it's true that you can raise your kid, well you can't raise your kid perfectly, nobody does, because none of us are perfect, but you can raise your kid well, if imperfectly, and they can still turn out poorly, because they can still make bad choices.
They are conscious human beings that have their own agency and their own willpower.
But I would say there's a certain level of rebellion where it becomes obvious that It's not actually rebellion at all, because the kid has no rules or standards to rebel against.
Right?
The risk or the fear, or to some extent the inevitable reality, is that if you set rules and standards, your kid will want to rebel.
Every kid will rebel to some extent.
But, when you see behavior like this, Like 15 years old, already with an ankle monitor, in an active arrest warrant, with a ski mask on, stealing a car, fleeing from the police at 111 miles an hour.
That's the kind of thing where, okay, this is not teenage rebellion anymore.
This is not a kid rebelling against rules and standards that were put in place.
This is a kid who has never had rules and standards.
There's nothing for him to rebel against.
It's not there to begin with.
Jumping over some sort of barrier that has been put in place or crossing lines that have been drawn.
There are no lines, no barriers, no standards, no rules.
And the kid is just sort of flailing about.
And that's what you see here.
And when that happens, who do you blame first?
Yes, you blame the parents.
You know, men's health products kind of suck, let's be honest.
They're either too woke, too bro, or they were made for your grandpa.
What you need is the new Emerson Multivitamin from Responsible Man.
Responsible Man is a new company from Daily Wire Ventures dedicated to bringing you the best high-quality men's health products.
Your modern diet is often deficient in key vitamins and minerals, leaving you weakened and diminished, unable to reach your full potential.
That's why we created the Emerson Oh, there's the front.
The Emerson Multivitamin.
The Emerson Multivitamin is a physician-formulated, robust supplement made up of 33 key premium ingredients that helps fill nutrient gaps to support your immune system, maintain energy production, sharpen brain cognition, and support the health of your heart and muscles.
Emerson comes in an exceptional matte black aluminum tin, which I am now holding in my hand, as you can see.
The manly green vitamin capsules are smooth, Easy to take, and the best part, they are mint-essenced for a great smell and taste.
As a man, you have people relying on you, and the world conspires to see you fail.
With so much chaos and uncertainty, it's crucial to take charge of your life and your responsibilities.
And that starts with the Emerson Multivitamin.
Simple, daily discipline.
to make the most of yourself, live up to your responsibilities, and exceed the expectations of
others. As part of this exclusive Daily Wire launch, you can save 30% off by visiting
ResponsibleMan.com. Emerson Multi-Vitamin is currently in stock and ships immediately.
There's a limited number available, so take advantage today and save 30%. That's
ResponsibleMan.com to take responsibility today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
One of the most common refrains of this era of so-called racial equity is that diversity,
equity, and inclusion policies actually help the bottom lines of companies that adopt them.
It's not just a moral imperative, we've been told, it's also supposedly good for business as a practical matter.
This reasoning explains why ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance, is dominant right now in the financial industry.
If you want a score, you know, if you want a high ESG score, which helps get more attention from big investment funds and governments all over the world, then your corporation needs to have a DEI program.
When investors ask any questions about this, they're instructed that this mandate has nothing to do with ideology or left-wing politics.
Instead, it's all about generating value for shareholders.
That's how the DEI takeover was sold to Wall Street, and it was an extremely aggressive pitch.
Pretty much every executive of every major company, except for Tesla, has parroted that talking point religiously for years.
Here's a line from the former president of Intel, for example, quote, there's a huge business case for diversity.
Mark Cuban has said the same thing, quote, I own or invest in hundreds of companies.
I know hashtag DEI is a positive because I see its impact on bottom lines.
But intuitively, no matter how many times various executives repeat this mantra, it's never made a lot of sense because DEI is about lowering or eliminating relevant standards in order to hire more people based on irrelevant characteristics that they can't control, like their gender or skin color.
So how could companies possibly make more money By lowering their standards at scale.
Nine years ago, it fell on the consulting firm McKinsey, Pete Buttigieg's alma mater, to come up with an answer to that question.
They know exactly what conclusion they had to reach.
And, dutifully, they reached it.
In 2015, McKinsey released its first study finding that more diverse companies tended to have higher earnings.
Quoting from the study, "Our latest research finds that companies in the top quartile for gender and racial and
ethnic diversity are more likely to have financial returns above their national industry medians.
Companies in the bottom quartile in these dimensions are statistically less likely to achieve above average returns.
While correlation does not equal causation, the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful.
In 2018, 2020, and 2023, McKinsey released similar reports reiterating this same finding and expanding on it to include other avenues of diversity, including transgenderism.
McKinsey also put on a whole speaker series featuring activists who say that DEI helps businesses make more money.
Here's just one of them from a couple of years ago.
go watch. In the case of organizations, diversity and inclusion foster better employment, employee, employee
engagement and productivity, as you mentioned, and allow for greater levels of innovation.
Also, and this is very relevant given the COVID-19 crisis, some studies found that companies with pro-diversity policies were more resilient during past crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis.
So it should be very obvious that a broader range of people have a wider range of interests, experiences, and backgrounds to draw upon.
They can better understand what the people, I mean users, consumers, citizens, etc., are asking for or looking for.
The woman on the left who's nodding along throughout the lecture is apparently some McKinsey DEI expert, and the woman who's talking is evidently a former president of Costa Rica.
So this is a relatively high-powered interview that McKinsey is putting on the internet, all for the benefit of about 662 viewers.
In any event, we're told that DEI helps productivity and innovation, and DEI even helped companies respond to the 2008 financial crisis somehow.
Because, of course, that was the issue with companies like Bear Stearns.
The problem wasn't all those asset-backed securities they issued.
No, Bear Stearns failed because they didn't have a non-binary CEO, apparently.
A lack of transgender representation, that was the problem.
Could have avoided the whole thing if they'd had more of that.
Now these kinds of platitudes have kept piling up unchallenged for the better part of a decade.
As recently as the end of last year, McKinsey once again wrote in a report that the business argument for DEI was more compelling than it had ever been before.
But it wasn't until March of this year that a scholarly publication like Econ Journal Watch decided to check McKinsey's work and try to confirm all of this.
Professor at Texas A&M's business school, along with a senior professor at UNC's business school, they were the primary authors and they tried to duplicate McKinsey's methods to ensure they got the same results.
You might remember this is one of the many ways that ex-Harvard president Claudine Gay was exposed as a fraud.
None of her work was capable of being duplicated, which means that, you know, that's a good indication that there's a problem here, and that's because she hid all of her data.
So, What happened when Econ Journal Watch re-ran McKinsey's numbers?
Here's our top line conclusion.
Quote, "When we revisit McKinsey's tests using data for firms in the publicly observable S&P 500
as of 12/31/2019, we do not find statistically significant relations
between McKinsey's measures of executive racial ethnic diversity at mid-2020
and either industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margin
or industry-adjusted sales growth, gross margin, return on assets, return on equity,
and total shareholder return over the prior five years, 2015 to 2019."
The researchers concluded, quote, "Our inability to quasi-replicate the results
suggests that despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey's studies,
they should not be relied on to support the view that U.S.
publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial ethnic diversity of their executives.
Now, as of now, McKinsey hasn't responded to this debunking, which tells you a lot.
Because if you have a decade's worth of research showing something, and then some academics come along and they say that it's all fraudulent, you'd think you'd want to respond in some way.
But McKinsey hasn't because, of course, all of their research on this topic is fake.
So, that raises a few obvious questions.
One of them is, how many other things we've been told to believe are actually completely fake and invented?
What else are they lying about?
If they can get away with bad data for nine years before someone thinks to check them on it.
And more to the point, how could McKinsey have gotten all of this so wrong?
Like, why would they have sacrificed their integrity so publicly to promote DEI?
Alex Edmonds, a finance professor at London Business School, has one theory.
On his blog, he wrote, "Another aspect of diversity "is to form diverse teams
"that can bring dissenting perspectives.
"But the six-person research team at McKinsey "was composed solely of women,
"the majority of whom are also ethnic minorities.
"Due to confirmation bias, "they might want to find that diversity matters
"and thus turn a blind eye to the glaring errors.
"In addition, none has a PhD in economics, "finance, or any business discipline,
"which is a basic qualification to do research.
"McKinsey is a premier consulting firm, "but that is very different from having expertise
"in scientific research.
"The team composition makes it more likely "that the study is advocacy rather than research."
In other words, the McKinsey study saying that diversity is essential,
Uh, The study itself could have benefited from some more diversity.
That's one of the many ironies that was highlighted by Edmonds, who, by the way, doesn't appear to be particularly political in his leanings.
He's lectured extensively about business and their social responsibilities.
He strikes me as a down-the-middle, kind of apolitical academic type of guy.
Not a lot of them left, but there's a few.
And he's calling out this McKinsey study for what it is.
The whole debacle was covered at length in a recent article in American Conservative Magazine, and the author of that article, Chris Brunais, makes the important point that what McKinsey pushed for is actually evil.
It wasn't some innocent lie.
It wasn't some noble lie.
It wasn't something where they had the best of intentions and it went wrong.
It damaged the lives of a lot of people.
Quote, the premise that racial composition inherently boosts economic performance is morally repugnant race science.
What if McKinsey had found that a homogenous racial composition, say all Caucasian, all Asian, or all male, were more profitable?
Would Mark Cuban and McKinsey then be entitled to preach racial purity for profit's sake?
Of course not.
This was never about profitability.
DEI was always a smokescreen for something far more sinister, a subversive embrace of Marxist equalitarianism under the thin veneer of fiduciary duty.
And that thin veneer is exactly what McKinsey was expected to provide when they first pretended to look into the impact of DEI.
They did what most consultants do, which is tell their clients what they want to hear.
McKinsey would have faced a lot of backlash if they had told the truth.
It's impossible to imagine that they would come out and say, oh, you know, actually, diversity doesn't matter.
It doesn't affect your business at all.
Never mind.
They weren't going to say that, so they simply lied.
And because they lied, a lot of people in this country have lost job opportunities on the basis of characteristics that they can't control.
Many companies have become less efficient.
And now finally, the fraud is officially exposed, thanks to the work of a couple of business school professors who were brave enough to do their jobs, which is extremely rare now in academia.
It's also apparently extremely rare in the consulting world, which isn't a surprise.
And that's why McKinsey and every corporation that relied on its obviously cooked data is today cancelled.
