Ep. 1420 - The Most Awkward And Unintentionally Hilarious Moment In The History Of The Olympics
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there were a lot of cringy moments at this year's Olympics, but none more excruciating and hilarious than the woke Australian PhD student who somehow made it into the breakdancing competition despite having no idea how to breakdance. This story is very funny, but also instructive. We'll talk about it. Also, JD Vance runs the gauntlet of Sunday interview shows and puts on a masterful display. MSNBC tries to explain why Tim Walz is a great guy, rather than a weird creep, for putting tampons in the boys' bathroom. And Joe Rogan gets canceled again--but this time by some influencers on the Right. What did he do to provoke their wrath?
Ep.1420
- - -
DailyWire+:
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | Get tickets this Thursday, Aug 15: https://www.amiracist.com
Get tickets to Backstage LIVE at the Ryman, this Wednesday, August 14! https://bit.ly/46igytS
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order + FREE Fiber & Spice Supplements. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, there were a lot of cringy moments at this year's Olympics, but none more excruciating and hilarious than the woke Australian PhD student who somehow made it into the breakdancing competition despite having no idea how to breakdance.
The story is very funny, but also instructive.
We'll talk about it.
Also, JD Vance runs the gauntlet of Sunday interview shows and puts on a masterful display.
MSNBC tries to explain why Tim Walz is a great guy rather than a weird creep for putting tampons in the boys' bathroom, and Joe Rogan gets canceled again, but this time by some influencers on the right.
What did he do to provoke their wrath?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
Sounds pretty time-consuming and, you know, sometimes I just want to eat an egg sausage McMuffin and other foods.
But with balance of nature, fruits and veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day.
every day with 31 different whole fruits and vegetable ingredients.
Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, they freeze dry them, turn them
into a powder and then put them in a capsule. You take your fruit and veggie
capsules every day and then your body knows what to do with them. Go to
balanceofnature.com, use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order as
preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's
balanceofnature.com, promo code Walsh. You know the point of the Olympics going
back to ancient times was to celebrate greatness.
Now, there were always cheaters.
The winner of the marathon of the 1904 Olympics was disqualified for getting in a car during the event, for example.
But they were generally dealt with pretty quickly.
Fraud was not rewarded, or at least it wasn't rewarded openly and deliberately by the people running the show.
And by the way, this is neither here nor there, but the guy who eventually won the marathon at the 1904 Olympics after the other guy who took a car was disqualified almost died at the finish line because his trainers had given him a treatment that included brandy, raw eggs, and a poison used in pesticides.
So, it was a different time.
Now, these days, the Olympics aren't really any less bizarre, but they are cringier.
Between the degeneracy at the opening ceremony of this year's Olympics, the convicted child rapist playing volleyball, the two men violently beating women in boxing competitions, these Olympics were fairly disastrous.
Indeed, it's safe to say that greatness is no longer even the point of the Olympics.
After all, a culture that rewards mediocrity cannot tolerate a celebration of excellence.
So instead, you are instructed again and again to watch losers and pretend they're successful.
Humiliation is the point.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
There was maybe no clearer illustration of this phenomenon at the Paris Olympics than the sad spectacle of 36-year-old Australian breakdancer Rachel Gunn, who uses the stage name Ray Gunn.
She's allegedly an award-winning athlete, having been named the Sports Star of the Year at something called the Pedestrian Television Awards.
As it turns out, pedestrian would be a generous way of describing Raygun's performance.
Raygun's also a university lecturer who holds a PhD in cultural studies from a university in Sydney, which he earned after writing a dissertation titled, Deterritorializing Gender in Sydney's Breakdancing Scene, A B-Girl's Experience of B-Boying.
More on that in a minute.
It's every bit as mind-numbing as you would expect.
Because breakdancing, for some reason, is an official Olympic event, for now at least, Gunn saw an opportunity to put all of her academic work into practice.
She somehow performed well enough at the Oceana Breakdance qualifying tournament in order to compete in Paris.
She scored zero points for her routine because despite making it to the Olympics as a breakdancer, the one little practical problem here is that she doesn't know how to breakdance.
So here's one of the clips that I can show you because the IOC hasn't had it taken down yet on copyright grounds at this point.
Let's watch.
Now someone said that her routine looks like something that a five-year-old might do right
after yelling, "Hey, dad, watch this."
And that sums it up pretty well.
At certain points, her dance moves remind me of a person becoming possessed in a horror film.
But that makes it sound more impressive than it is.
It might be more accurate to say that she looks like a disabled kangaroo having an epileptic seizure.
I can say, at least, that I have done a few of her moves myself in the middle of the night when I wake up with a charley horse in my leg.
Now, if you zoom in, there's a moment during that routine where someone in the audience appears to have basically the same thought.
And you look at that guy, and that's the expression of a man thinking, what in God's name am I watching?
It's a complete joke, and everyone watching understood that it's a complete joke immediately.
The fact that this woman qualified in any way to compete in the Olympics is the clearest possible evidence that breakdancing should not be an Olympic event.
And indeed, it looks like it may not be around much longer.
It's not on the official schedule for the Olympics at Los Angeles in 2028.
So Rachel Gunn may have actually done the world a favor by bombing so badly that it ended this trend before it really began.
In summary, Dr. Reagan, rather, she does have a PhD, has no actual skills.
And she appears to have realized that fact very early on in her professional life, which
is why she's built her entire career on the idea that anyone, especially any woman or
any victim group, should be able to do whatever they want, even if they're not very good at
it.
There's no secret about this.
She comes out and says it.
And a university gave her a PhD for saying it, even though her dissertation has all of
the readability and coherence of Scrabble tiles dumped randomly on the floor.
And just to give you an idea, her dissertation begins by stating, quote, I recognize my own position as a member of the LGBTQI community, though one receiving privileges for being in a heteronormative relationship.
So she's LGBT, which makes her oppressed, but she's in a heteronormative relationship, so she has some privilege by osmosis, I guess.
How can you be both LGBT and in a heteronormative relationship?
I don't know.
How can you be an Olympic athlete while having the coordination of a baby fawn just taking its first steps?
I don't know, the world is full of mysteries.
In any event, she never defines what that privilege is or why it's relevant to any actual academic topic, but she declares that she has it right out of the gate.
And then Dr. Reagan gets into the really substantive stuff, and this is where she wants you to re-conceptualize what it means to be good at breakdancing.
Rather than viewing female breakdancers as lacking the skills and techniques required to participate, we can instead propose that how breakdancing operates, the way it is structured and defined, is in opposition to the feminine.
In other words, who cares if a woman can't breakdance?
That shouldn't prevent them from breakdancing, even at the Olympics.
All they have to do is join breakdancing competitions and everyone else has to pretend they're doing a good job.
Problem solved.
It's a 300-page dissertation and it's almost completely unreadable, but that's kind of the overriding message.
Women can do whatever they want.
It's only misogynists who would dare to say otherwise.
Quoting again from the dissertation, "Social expectations disguised as biological assumptions
have a material effect on the corporeal possibility and expression."
Now, what she's trying to say here is that, I think, that society restricts what women are
able to do, which is not really true, of course, in Western societies.
And the idea that women are somehow excluded from the world of dance is just about as nonsensical a claim as you can make.
You may as well argue that Asians are being unfairly excluded from martial arts.
But the more pressing point here is that this is what passes for scholarship these days.
Academia is now full of unimpressive dimwits who disguise the most banal observations and shallow off-base analysis with big words and lots of unnecessary syllables.
And this, by the way, is the mark of a dumb person.
It's also the mark of academia, which should tell you something.
But this is what dumb people do.
Smart people can make complicated ideas sound simple.
Dumb people make simple ideas sound complicated.
And that's all that academia does anymore.
It's nothing more than the effort to make simple and often quite wrong ideas sound way more complicated than they are.
Her whole dissertation is like this, quoting again, I do not want to set out a utopian vision for the future of gender politics in breaking.
As tempting as this may be, such a call to arms would place limitations on the prospects enabled through deterritorializations.
Well, it's good that she adds this caution, because if she hadn't, I would have thought that her dissertation about the politics of breakdancing is a guide to establishing a universal utopia on Earth.
But she's a very humble person, so she warns us that she cannot guide us to a utopia.
She can only bring us most of the way to the promised land.
She's like the Moses of white female street dancers.
But what about this deterritorialization concept?
What does that word mean?
Well, it doesn't mean anything.
It's not a real word.
It's more academic jargon invented by 110 IQs who want to sound like 150 IQs, even though nobody with 150 IQ would ever be caught dead using a word like deterritorialization.
As for what it's supposed to mean, as best I can tell, it means that something is being spread.
So if it's deterritorialized, it's spread beyond its traditional or original territory.
Something like that.
What does that have to do with breakdancing?
Who knows.
The greater question is this, however.
Why is a university paying someone to write a dissertation on this topic and then teach about it full-time?
We could potentially use another dissertation that answers that question.
That's because as amusing as it may be to look at this woman spaz out in front of an international audience and call it athleticism, there are serious implications here.
She's not the only person who thinks like this.
Pretty much everyone in power now thinks like this, and this again is what academia is all about.
And once again, a university in Australia gave her a PhD for writing about how she's sad because more women aren't breakdancers.
Then she won a qualifier and appeared in the Olympics despite having no talent whatsoever.
And even after Ray Gunn publicly humiliated both herself and her country, Australia's officials are still standing by here.
So here's Australia's top Olympic official, Anna Mears, talking about Rachel Gunn's feelings and how everyone who doesn't support her and tell her she did a good job probably hates women.
Watch.
What I can say is that I love Rachel and I think that what has occurred on social media with trolls and keyboard warriors and taking those comments and giving them airtime has been really disappointing.
If you don't know Rachel's story, in 2008 she was locked in a room crying, being involved in a male-dominated sport as the only woman.
And it took great courage for her to continue on and fight for her opportunity to participate in a sport that she loved.
And that got her to winning the Olympic qualifying event to be here in Paris.
She is the best breakdancer female that we have for Australia.
Now you look at the history of what we have had as women athletes has faced in terms of criticism, belittlement, judgement, criticism and simple comments like they shouldn't be there.
Courage.
You know, there's a fine line between courage and a lack of self-awareness, and I think that Dr. Ray Gunn has crossed that line by about a mile.
Anyway, that's an Australian official, and my case for invading and conquering Australia gets stronger every day.
But in between all the sobbing and deflection and accusations of misogyny, there was an interesting claim in there, which is that Rachel Gunn is supposedly the best female breakdancer in all of Australia.
There's not a single woman in the entire country of 26 million people that could do any better.
And if that's the case, it's surprising.
I mean, her dance routine looks like the contortions a person might do if a spider ran up their shirt.
And there are a lot of spiders in Australia, so you'd think that many people would be capable of at least matching her performance.
Now, this obviously isn't the most important news happening in the world right now, but It's worth discussing for a few reasons.
And first of all, it's hilarious.
That's the main reason.
But it also tells us something about our culture, and especially about the university system.
Thanks to universities whose mission is supposedly to educate future generations, a profoundly narcissistic and untalented woman is being paid to write about breakdancing.
An unserious topic that, in any event, she doesn't even understand or respect.
And then, because she's a woman, her country elevated her far beyond her competence, all the while attacking anyone who pointed out how absurd the whole situation is.
Now, yes, it's quite possible that Reagan would justify her performance by saying that it's interpretive and it's supposed to convey some kind of meaningful message.
And to be fair, her performance does have a meaningful message.
It's just not the one that she intends to send.
It shows us, in humorous though excruciating detail, just what happens when someone is able to coast by on victim points and intersectionality arithmetic, eventually making it to a position that they are not remotely qualified for.
It's just very fortunate for the rest of us that Raegun decided that she wanted to be a breakdancer and not, say, I don't know, an airline pilot.
Can only imagine her interpretive piloting techniques at 30,000 feet.
So, if the Olympics are good for anything anymore, it's this.
It's putting images like this in the minds of millions of people.
It's exposing the absurdity of identity politics and the gender cult by taking their beliefs to their logical conclusion.
And that may not be good for a sporting competition, but with less than 90 days to go until a DEI candidate is on the ballot for the presidency of the United States, it's hard to think of a more important or more timely message.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes.
Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage.
Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order,
ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures
are halted. If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns, or if you're missing
records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate
the risk of IRS enforcement. Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit their website at TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh today.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
I want to start just quickly with this, because JD Vance made the rounds on the Sunday shows yesterday.
I think he did three.
He did three of the Sunday shows, all in a single morning slash afternoon.
And if you go on social media right now, or if you go to the corporate media outlets, they'll tell you that Vance's That circuit through the Sunday shows was a disaster.
It was terrible.
It was a disaster.
It was awful.
He did a terrible job.
Complete meltdown.
And then you go, and the funny thing is that you hear this about the meltdown.
It was terrible.
It was awful.
And the people saying that, it's usually, that's not accompanied by any actual clip, an example.
Okay, well, he had a meltdown.
He did a terrible job.
Show me an example.
Where's the clip of this?
Where's the terrible moment?
There must have been a lot of them.
But as usual, the people making that claim, they don't show the clips.
The actual clips that you see circulating of J.D.
Vance doing the Sunday shows, he's not only doing a good job, he's in fact doing a masterful job.
And he's actually showing why he was a very good pick for VP.
And there are plenty of conservatives now who are saying that this was a bad pick, Trump should not have picked him.
There are some conservatives who said that beforehand.
They said they didn't want J.D.
Vance.
There are some who were happy with it, and now they say, well, in hindsight, he shouldn't have picked J.D.
Vance.
And they're saying that mainly because of the way that Vance is being treated by the media, the way that they're trying to turn Vance into this kind of punchline, this joke.
But as I've been explaining now for a week or two, they're not just doing that because it's J.D.
Vance.
They would do that to anyone.
No matter who Trump picked, they were going to single that person out and drag them through the mud, obviously, and turn them into a punchline.
And as we've seen with Vance, they are not at all above just taking completely made up stories and using that as fodder to turn the guy or try to turn him into a punchline.
And if they're going to do that, they can do that to anyone.
They could, if they had picked you as the VP, right?
If Trump had picked you, whoever you are, well, the media would have said, well, here's this person.
Let's just make up stories about them.
And these are made up stories about his past.
And that even includes The story they're making up today about Vance, the story about yesterday, the story they're telling about yesterday is that he did a terrible job.
The reality is he didn't.
He did a great job.
Let me just play one clip because I think it shows why Vance, I think, is one of the best Republicans in the country, if not the best, at dealing with an adversarial media.
So there are a couple we could choose, but let's start with this.
And he's asked about About comments that he made about, you know, we've all heard the childless cat lady thing over and over again.
He's pressed on that.
And he answers it.
He does a good job answering it.
But then he pivots in, I think, a very clever way.
Let's watch this.
You've now asked me three questions about comments that I made three years ago.
I wonder what Kamala Harris thinks about the fact that she supported policies that opened the American southern border.
I wonder what Kamala Harris thinks about the fact that she lied to the American people about Joe Biden's mental middle facility for the office. You are interviewing me,
Dana, because I respect the American people enough to sit down for an interview.
I appreciate that. Kamala Harris has been the nominee for three weeks. She hasn't sat down for a real interview.
Believe me, we are asking.
You're not going to get a disagreement there.
But the point is, Dana, you've got me for 15 minutes or however long you have me. We should be talking about public
policies that matter.
How are we going to lower inflation? How are we going to reduce the cost of food and housing?
How are we going to close down that southern border?
We've talked so little about that.
We've talked a lot more about a sarcastic remark I made three years ago.
I think we should talk about the issues that most Americans care about.
This is exactly the right response.
So when you're dealing with the adversarial media, you get these tough questions, which are really bad faith questions.
And the game here is to, you're not dodging the question, you answer the question briefly
and succinctly.
And then you pivot the conversation back to your campaign message, to your message.
And you put the adversary, because it's not really an interview, it's an interrogation,
they're not treating it like an interview.
And you turn that person, you turn it against them, you put them on their heels, you put
them in a defensive position where they have to all of a sudden explain themselves.
And he does it very well there.
At another point, he's asked about Trump's comments in that interview with the, again,
we can't really call it an interview, but that interrogation by the black journalists,
his comments about whether Kamala Harris is actually black or not.
And he handles this really well also.
Let's watch it.
I believe that Kamala Harris is whatever she says she is.
But I believe, importantly, that President Trump is right, that she's a chameleon.
She pretends to be one thing in front of one audience.
She pretends to be something different in front of another audience.
Look, Dana, she's not running a political campaign.
She's running a movie.
She only speaks to voters behind a teleprompter.
Everything is scripted.
She doesn't have her policy positions out there.
She hasn't answered why she wanted to ban fracking, but now she doesn't.
She wanted to fund police, but now she doesn't.
She wanted to open the border, but now she doesn't.
She should have to answer for why she presents a different set of policies to one audience and a different set of policies to another audience.
And I think that's what President Trump is getting at.
This is a fundamentally fake person.
She's different depending on who she's in front of.
Another, once again, very well done.
You're taking the question, you're saying, OK, I'll answer your dumb question.
Here it is.
But here's what we should be talking about.
And if you're a Republican on the national stage, you need to be very good at that.
Most Republicans aren't.
And if you're Trump's running mate, you have to be especially good at that.
And you also have to be good at—this is one of the kind of unique skills that someone who's Trump's running mate or in the Trump administration at all has to be able to do.
Which is because Trump's going to say a lot of stuff.
He's going to get up at his rally.
He's going to talk for 90 minutes about anything at all.
And he's going to say, he's going to say a thousand different things.
And the media is going to sift through it and pick out whatever bits they want and obsess over those bits.
So you have to be good at like taking those little random bits and asides and half jokes that Trump says.
You have to be good at taking those and bringing those back to the Fundamental core campaign message.
And J.D.
Vance does a great job of it there.
The other running mate, Tim Walz, of course, there's plenty of controversy swarming around him, although he's not being interrogated about it yet, for misrepresenting his military record.
And this is a major problem for the Democrats.
Now, the media is providing cover for the Harris campaign for now, but it is a major problem.
They can't hide from it forever.
And it's not the only problem, though, because Walls is a radical leftist and he's a bizarre, creepy guy with a quite deranged and sordid past.
And that includes his policy of putting tampons in the boys' restrooms at schools.
Now, any normal person finds that disturbing and weird at a minimum.
But here's MSNBC doing their best to try to spin this to make it Not just a normal thing, but a normal thing that any dad would do.
Let's watch.
Talk about this.
Well, first and foremost, Tim Walls is a dad.
And that is big dad energy, making sure that folks who need access to hygiene products have them.
We don't charge people to use toilet paper right at their schools.
This is a necessity for people.
And I think it just shows the kindness and the goodness in him.
And I also think folks are telling on themselves.
Right, when they don't see why this is a necessity.
You're telling me you've never had to use a wad of toilet paper and, like, try to figure it out, or that you haven't had resources to pay for tampons or for pads?
You know, this is a real issue, and it just shows how disconnected they are from the lives of real people across the country.
I think it's a huge victory, and he should wear that moniker proudly.
That's allegedly a news anchor, by the way, who started off By saying that the Republican campaign is driving him crazy, so editorializing.
And then this is the corporate media's version of, you know, holding people in power accountable if they're on the left side.
The question is, you know, your opponents are a bunch of horrible bigots.
Care to comment?
Care to comment on why your opponents are terrible?
Say, I've noticed that your opponents are really, really bad and terrible.
What do you have to say about that?
Well, she says that it's big dad energy to put tampons in the boys' room.
I mean, these people are just freaks.
My God.
It's big dad energy to give tampons to boys?
What the hell are you talking about?
Like, what kind of dads are you hanging out with?
No, you know what big dad energy is in this case?
Big dad energy is to hear about a tampon dispenser in the boys' room and to then walk in there and rip it off the wall.
Okay, that's what it is.
Big dad energy is to say, what?
The tampon's in the boys' room?
What kind of nonsense is that?
And then go handle it.
Like, that's big dad energy.
But notice something else.
Notice how neither one of those people, neither the anchor nor the woman who, that's Walz's lieutenant governor, I believe, neither of them addressed the actual issue, of course, which is that boys don't need tampons because boys don't get periods.
That's the point.
And it's never addressed.
This is the game they play, right?
Like, they put tampons in the boys' room, And then you object, because that's crazy, and they say, oh, so you think that feminine hygiene products shouldn't be made available to people who need them?
No, that's not what we're saying, you moron.
Yes, make them available to people who need them, but boys don't need them.
That's the point.
Literally no boy in the history of the human race has needed a tampon.
No boy ever has menstruated or ever will.
So, that's the point.
You know, the lieutenant governor says, oh, these folks are telling on themselves.
What, are you telling me that you've never been in a spot and, you know, you didn't have a tampon, you needed to use balled-up toilet paper?
Yeah, I am telling you that, ma'am.
I've never been in that spot.
Okay, because I'm a man.
So approximately half of the human race has never been in the spot you're talking about.
Because we don't menstruate.
Because we're men.
Okay?
That's the point here.
But the left cannot engage on that point.
They will not engage on it.
They will not sit there and actually defend, explicitly defend the proposition that boys can menstruate.
They're not going to do it.
They will not do it because they know how crazy it sounds.
They don't want that clip circulating out there.
They don't want that.
So instead they argue with it, like if you didn't know any better and you heard this conversation, you would think that conservatives are objecting to feminine hygiene products being made available to females in female bathrooms.
That's what you would think.
But of course that isn't, that's the opposite of what we're saying.
The opposite.
But they're not going to do it.
I mean, you have to force them to do it.
Corporate media is not going to force them, but you have to force them to actually stand by their real positions.
Your actual position is that you think boys can menstruate, and so you need to defend that.
Donald Trump is going to have to get Kamala Harris to defend that proposition specifically.
Like, Kamala, do men have uteruses, yes or no?
Do you think that men have uteruses and can have babies?
Is that what you think?
Like, what's your take on that?
Get her on the record saying that men can have babies.
Because if you don't put them on the spot and force them to confront the insanity of their own positions, they're going to dance around it.
And they're more likely to just say what Walls said at a rally over the weekend when he was responding to the uproar over this and other things.
And this was his response to his critics.
Let's watch.
You and I, especially the gray hairs in the crowd, we know, we know our relatives.
Republicans used to be the people talking about freedom.
Not this group.
When they talk about freedom, it means that the government should be free to invade your exam room with your doctor.
Look, in Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and the personal choices they make.
We maybe wouldn't make the same choices, but we respect them.
And I know in Minnesota and in Arizona and places across this country, you know what makes society work best?
Is when you learn a golden rule.
Mind your own damn business.
Mind your own damn business.
You don't need it.
I don't need you telling me what books to read.
I don't need you telling me about what religion we worship.
And I sure the heck don't need you to tell me about my family.
So mind your own damn business, he says.
This is the same guy, of course, who set up a snitch line during COVID so that your neighbor could report you if you weren't social distancing or not wearing a mask in your own living room.
This is the guy who supports funding Planned Parenthood.
Forcing taxpayers to fund abortions, whether they like it or not.
This is a guy who would call you a horrendous bigot if you don't use preferred pronouns for someone, meaning he expects you to adopt gender ideology, participate in it, like, be an active part of it.
So mind your own business.
Like, that's the last thing that he wants.
Even one of the examples that he gives, he says, uh, I don't need you telling me what books to read.
No one's telling you what books to read, Tim Walz.
Okay, like, I mean, I think it'd be great if you read any book at all.
So if you're reading books, then good.
Just start by reading any book.
But that's not the point.
Okay, no one is telling you what books you should read.
So the, don't tell us what books to read thing, that's a reference, of course, to the supposed book bans that the left drones on and on about.
But those book bans are not book bans, those are efforts to, specifically, to get pornographic content out of public schools.
That's all that is.
So the Republicans who supposedly support book bans, the conservatives that are calling for book bans, Let's be very specific about it.
They're saying, let's prohibit pornographic content from schools.
Let's just do that.
And why is that stuff in the schools to begin with?
Why is explicitly sexual stuff in the schools?
Why do these teachers, these adults, want to talk to minors about this explicitly sexual material?
Why do you want to share sexual material with minors, you creeps?
Like, why do you want to do that?
Well, it's because the left isn't minding their own business.
They want to talk to kids about this stuff because they're not minding their own business.
They want to be the ones instilling values in our children.
They want to be the ones who talk to our children about subjects that only parents should be talking about.
So, mind your own damn business.
Yeah, good advice.
Mind your own damn business.
They're not your kids.
Okay, teach the ABCs and 1-2-3s.
Teach about history and math.
That's what we need in the school.
All the rest of it is none of your damn business.
So, they're very selective about the times when We should be minding our own business.
And these are people that are certainly not in the habit of doing that at all.
I wanted to mention this also.
On Friday, it was reported all over social media that Joe Rogan had endorsed RFK Jr.
on his podcast.
And let's first listen to a clip.
This is what the supposed endorsement consisted of.
That's just what they do.
That's politics.
They do it on the left, they do it on the right.
They gaslight you, they manipulate you, they promote narratives, and the only one who's not doing that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
You a fan?
Yeah, I am a fan.
Yeah, he's the only one that makes sense to me.
He's the only one that, he doesn't attack people, he attacks actions and ideas, but he's He's much more reasonable and intelligent.
The guy was an environmental attorney and cleaned up the East River.
He's a legitimate guy.
Before anybody started calling him an anti-vaxxer, which I thought he was, I thought he was this nut, this conspiracy theorist nut, until I read his book.
I read The Real Anthony Fauci, and I'm like, what?
How much of this is real?
Because if it's all real, this is insane, and we live in a world where we're being manipulated by these health organizations that are being paid by the pharmaceutical drug interests.
And these pharmaceutical drug companies are pumping these products out into the population and telling us that we need them, and then making insane amounts of money, and then Also, the government is in on it, and also they share a patent with Moderna, and also they share profits, and there's 700 million dollars, 700... I mean, however much money was made, whatever the number is that these guys made off of these products, like this is, all of it is crazy.
Okay, now you may notice something about Rogan's endorsement of RFK Jr., which is that he did not endorse RFK Jr.
He said nice things about him.
He praised him.
That's not the same thing as endorsing him.
In fact, what Rogan said about RFK Jr.
is no different than what he said about the guy in the past.
He said all this same stuff in the past many times.
There's no story here.
There's nothing new.
So Joe Rogan has the same view of RFK Jr.
today that he had last week.
That's the story.
Now, even if Rogan had endorsed him, even if he had said, I am officially endorsing RFK Jr.
for president, it still wouldn't be a big deal.
I mean, certainly nothing to get upset about.
Rogan is free to prefer whatever candidate he wants, endorse whatever candidate he wants.
You know, I like Joe, but I'm not voting based on who Joe endorses.
And he doesn't expect anyone to vote based on that.
In fact, Joe's been very clear when it comes to politics or anything else that he doesn't want his audience to just go blindly believe or follow whatever he says.
Like, to his credit, he's always been pretty clear about that.
He's just giving his own take on it.
This is what I think.
You guys should think for yourself.
So, the whole thing's a non-issue.
Not an endorsement, even if it was.
Like, who cares?
Okay.
Joe Rogan's not a Republican.
I mean, did anyone not know that?
But that's not how it was treated by certain segments of the right, especially on Twitter.
There was a lot of anger and outrage over this.
In fact, I found out about it because I was, maybe like other people, I saw Joe Rogan trending on Twitter.
And I thought, okay, what's the left mad about this time?
What are they complaining about this time, what Joe Rogan said?
So I clicked on it, only to find, much to my chagrin, that he was trending this time because people on the right were whining about him.
Because of this.
The account CatTurd, which is an account called CatTurd, but it does have 2.7 million followers, That account, among others, spent all day attacking Joe, and he posted stuff like this.
Quote, so I've never been a Joe Rogan fan, can't stand him.
Yes, he has a popular podcast, but I've always thought he was absolutely politically dumb.
He's great at figuring things out two years after we do.
What a legend.
So did it surprise me when he endorsed idiot RFK Jr.
today?
LOL, no.
We're talking about the same effing idiot who endorsed Bernie Sanders, right?
He's the podcast equivalent of a dumb blonde joke.
He also called his podcast gay and low IQ and dumb blonde again.
He kept going on and on about the dumb blonde thing, along with a bunch of other insults.
Insults that seem to indicate that he's never listened to the podcast.
I mean, you could say what you want about Rogan's show, but the guy... I mean, he'll have like a three and a half hour conversation with an astronomer or an archaeologist.
Call that what you want, but low IQ and dumb blonde just don't make any sense.
There are probably no dumb blondes listening to Joe Rogan on a regular basis.
So if you're going to insult someone, at least try to make sure that your insults bear some relation to your target.
Unless he's saying that Joe Rogan himself is a dumb blonde, but Rogan is a 57-year-old bald guy, so no one's looking at Rogan and saying, oh, look at that dumb blonde.
So I'm confused.
Maybe it's because I'm a dumb blonde.
I don't know.
But let's not get hung up on that.
Or on this one account that was attacking Rogan, this is just an example.
And there were a lot of tweets like that from certain right-wingers who were very, very upset with Joe Rogan and basically swore him off as a moron and a tool because he endorsed RFK Jr., even though he did not endorse RFK Jr.
And that is what was going on.
So I want to say something about this, and I already addressed it on Twitter, but I want to repeat the same point here on the show.
And that is, first of all, Joe Rogan is a powerful cultural force.
One that is, at a minimum, extremely friendly to conservatives.
Countless times over the years, he has platformed, as the left would like to say, right-wing voices.
Very right-wing voices, okay?
People who are far more right-wing than the conservatives who are attacking Joe Rogan now.
Like, he's given a platform to people who are much more based than the conservatives that are freaking out at Joe Rogan.
He may not consider himself to be a conservative or to be a part of the conservative movement, and that's fine.
He's still a net good for the culture and for conservatism.
A significant net good.
He might not be a conservative, but he's a friend to conservatives.
And he's taken conservative positions that were extremely unpopular and pretty risky at the time that he took them.
He did that with COVID, for example.
He started openly questioning the trans agenda years ago.
I mean, he was criticizing the trans agenda before many conservatives were criticizing it.
He's been a much more indispensable opponent of trans ideology, a much more effective opponent of trans ideology, than like all of the conservatives criticizing him combined.
Okay?
So, here's the point.
You don't turn on a guy who's been a huge asset to your movement, a guy who could continue to be a huge asset.
And I'm not saying you have to agree with him.
I'm not saying you can't criticize him.
If you heard him, you heard what he said about RFK Jr., and you were to come out and say, no, Joe's wrong on this one.
Okay?
He's, I don't agree.
RFK Jr.
is bad.
Here's why.
That's fine.
There's no problem with that.
Like, the point is not that you have to automatically agree with everything Rogan says, or that you have to refrain from criticizing him or making any arguments against him.
That's not the point.
Go ahead and criticize him, absolutely.
But to just completely trash the guy, I mean, to throw him to the side, to condemn him totally as nothing but a moron and a phony, etc., etc., all because he said one thing you disagree with is asinine.
It is strategically insane.
Like, I'm not saying that it's mean and it hurts my feelings.
It doesn't.
I mean, I'm not the one getting attacked.
I mean, I do get attacked by these same people all the time.
But in this case, it wasn't me.
And I don't think it hurts Joe's feelings.
Honestly, I don't think he really cares what these Twitter influencers are saying about him.
I'm saying that strategically, it's just a very dumb move.
It's stupid and petty and emotional.
You're shooting yourself in the foot just to prove a point.
Like, and there's way too much of this kind of thing among certain right-wing influencers at the moment.
These people just, they don't understand how to build and maintain an actual movement.
They don't know how to wield influence, even though we call them influencers.
How to form strategic alliances.
And they don't know who we should be forming alliances with.
Like, they have no instinct for that at all.
In fact, they seem to go Really looking to destroy anyone who actually moves the needle.
Because the litmus test for these people is just this.
Are you currently saying something nice about Donald Trump?
And if you're currently saying something nice about him, then you're great.
You're a hero.
You're our friend.
You're our ally.
We love you.
You're our compatriot.
Then you're worthless.
You're a piece of garbage.
You're an idiot.
We don't need you.
Burn in hell, you sack of s***.
Like, that is the attitude.
And it's just crazy.
It's crazy.
Because there are plenty of people in the culture who may not always say nice stuff about Trump, and yet could be very helpful to the movement overall.
People who might not even like Trump all that much, and yet can still be an enormous asset culturally.
Meanwhile, there are other people who may love Trump, And yet have very little to offer.
Because loving Trump alone cannot be the only thing that determines who we align ourselves with.
Right?
Like, if an abortion doctor, who's currently an abortionist and has no plans on stopping, if they were to stand up and say, I love Trump.
Are we going to elevate that person and say that this person is our friend now?
That currently are killing babies because they like Trump?
I would hope not.
But because of this kind of litmus test, what ends up happening is that you have these influencers who throw someone like Joe Rogan to the side.
While heaping praise on like some obscure rapper who nobody cares about and nobody likes and has no real fans and has no cultural influence and makes garbage music.
But, you know, they shouted MAGA at a concert once or whatever.
So it's like you trade in the guy with massive cultural impact for somebody with none.
Because to you, the only thing that matters is just that one little bit.
It's just, it's a bad strategy.
That's not how you build and maintain a movement.
So the right thing to say to someone like Joe Rogan is, hey, you should vote for Donald Trump.
I think it's a huge mistake.
This is me talking now.
I think it's a huge mistake to not vote for Donald Trump.
Huge mistake.
And we could talk about why.
But, like, the fact that you don't agree on that point, you're not my enemy.
I mean, there are people out there who are enemies of our movement.
Let's be very clear about that.
Who hate our guts, who want us dead.
There are evil people who have evil positions and want to do evil things and are doing evil things.
And they are enemies.
But someone like Joe Rogan isn't.
And so there's nothing wrong, again, with saying, hey, you're totally wrong about this.
You're way off base.
Like, you should be voting for Donald Trump.
You don't vote for Donald Trump that, you know, you say whatever you want about third parties and whatever and it's your vote and you can do what you want with it.
Of course, that's true.
But in reality, like, in the real world, there are only two candidates who matter.
RFK Jr.
is not going to win.
And also, by the way, he's really just a standard leftist for the most part.
I mean, he's a standard leftist on most things except when it comes to Big Pharma.
And he's good on Big Pharma.
Give him credit for that.
I mean, I think it'd be fantastic if Trump made him head of HHS or something.
Great.
I wouldn't mind having RFK Jr.
in the cabinet.
But there are only two options.
It's Kamala.
Who is a, you know, it's the communist or it's Donald Trump.
Those are your two options in the real world.
And if you don't vote for the non-communist, then you are in effect, even if you don't mean to, you are in effect supporting the communist.
You're helping the communist to gain power.
Again, nothing wrong with making that argument.
We should make it, but we don't need to, you know, Take someone and burn them at the stake as a heretic because of this one point, as important as it is.
Well, you know how we exposed the utter insanity of the gender cult with What Is A Woman?
Well, the same group of white guys are back, and this time we're taking aim at the race hustlers.
Am I Racist is coming to theaters this September.
I went deep undercover into the cesspool of DEI, sat through their mind-numbing seminars, nodded along to their pseudo-intellectual babble, watched as they twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain their own nonsense.
It was...
Very painful, but somebody had to do it.
And this Thursday, August 15th, advance tickets go on sale for Am I Racist, so you can see all this for yourself.
And what we need you to do is get yours and get them early.
So check out amiracist.com, watch the trailer, get the details, get the tickets on August 15th.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
On Twitter over the weekend, somebody posted an interesting prompt for discussion.
The question posed is this.
What might you ask on a first date to determine their IQ?
Now, lots of people offered answers to this question.
Many of the answers were predictably horrible, likely because they were given by people who have no record of success in the dating world.
And just to remind you, a record of success in dating does not mean that you've dated a lot of people.
That is, in fact, a record of failure.
Okay?
If you've dated a lot of people, you're bad at dating.
You're bad at this.
No one should listen to you.
If you are, say, in your late 20s or early 30s, and you've been on hundreds of dates with many dozens of different people, That doesn't mean that you're good at dating.
It means that you are apparently not good at it.
In a similar way, if a college senior is now heading into his seventh year of college, it doesn't mean that he's really good at college.
We shouldn't say, this guy's great at college, he's been doing it forever.
It means precisely the opposite.
So dating, like college, should move from one step to the next until you graduate.
People qualified to give dating advice, the only people qualified to give it, are those who have graduated.
And graduation in this case, of course, is marriage.
The whole point of dating is to graduate to marriage.
If someone has not yet graduated, then there's, you know, we don't know whether they know how to graduate because they haven't done it.
And if they don't know how to do the thing that dating is actually for, they're certainly not equipped to give dating advice.
So that might explain why the dating advice offered on social media and in response to questions like this is so terrible so often.
But, as a dating graduate myself, I decided to take a stab at the question.
It is a good question, I will say.
You know, you should be looking to date someone who is basically intelligent.
The only caveat is that you actually shouldn't need to ask any particular question to figure this out.
If you are yourself intelligent, then you should be able to assess whether the other person is intelligent just from talking to them for 10 minutes.
If your dumb radar, your dumbdar, let's call it, is not finely tuned enough to sniff out a dummy in 10 minutes or less, Well, I've got bad news for you.
I don't think I need to spell it out.
Actually, I do need to spell it out.
You're dumb.
That's what I'm saying.
So, with that said, there are questions you can ask that will help clarify things pretty quickly.
So, here's what I advise with the stipulation that this particular advice only applies to women dating men.
So, I've given men plenty of dating advice over the years.
So, this one's for the ladies.
If you want to figure out what kind of man you're with intellectually, Ask him this question.
What historical periods are you interested in?
This is a very serious suggestion to any single woman.
The next time you're on a date, ask that question.
It won't tell you everything you need to know about the guy, but it will tell you a lot, and it may tell you enough.
Because an intelligent man with an inquisitive mind will not only have an answer, but will be excited that you asked.
Like, you want a man who not only answers it, but is like, oh, thank God, I didn't think you'd be asking me that question on a first date.
Thank God.
Let's talk about this.
His eyes will light up that you brought this up.
And he might tell you that he's interested in the American Revolution, or the Civil War, or ancient Egypt, or the early church, or the late Roman Empire, or the Napoleonic Wars, or the Crusades.
Or you might be really lucky and find yourself on a date with a guy who has a very specific and slightly more obscure historical interest.
Maybe he tells you that he's reading a book right now about the history of Mongolia, or the Amazon, or 19th century polar exploration, or any of a thousand other possible topics.
If he's a smart, interesting guy who likes to read and loves to learn, he can not only rattle off facts about this area of interest, but even more importantly, he can tell you why he's interested in it.
And you can learn a lot about him, not just what he likes to read about and what historical periods he finds fascinating, but when he tells you what he likes about it, like why does this resonate with him, you can learn more from that than you can from two hours of mindless small talk.
Now, as the woman, this not only shows you that he's an intelligent guy, but it also provides you an opportunity to make yourself appealing to him.
Because a man is not looking for a woman who shares his interests.
Okay, just so you know, the man's not looking for you to like all the same stuff that he likes.
If he likes to hunt and to read books about World War II, he doesn't need a woman who also likes to hunt and read books about World War II.
In fact, he'd probably be kind of weirded out by that.
He's looking for a woman, after all, not another dude.
But he does want a woman who is interested in the fact that he is interested in those things.
So he wants a woman who encourages him in his interests and respects his interests and is even a little bit impressed by them.
So for instance, my wife does not share my quite rabid interest in fishing.
And I've seen her maybe pick up a fishing rod three times since we married, while I have picked one up, you know, three million times.
But when I come home from fishing and I report that I just caught the biggest fish ever, She will eagerly ask to see a picture, and when I show her the picture, she'll act legitimately impressed.
Now, she may be pretending or hamming it up a bit, just, you know, for all I know, but I appreciate the effort.
It's very feminine and affectionate for a woman to make her man feel special and accomplished in those moments.
A woman who rolls her eyes and makes it clear that she doesn't give a crap at all is a buzzkill and a turnoff.
So, she doesn't have to care, but she should care that he cares.
And that's your opportunity to signal to the man that you're the kind of woman who cares that he cares about something.
So this question is a win-win on multiple levels.
On the flip side, if a man is asked what historical periods interest him and he cannot answer the question, or even scoffs at it, or offers up some generic historical subject but then can't explain why he finds it interesting or speak at any length about it, that's a good sign that he's a boring midwit with a shallow, incurious mind.
Now, I'm not saying that your date has to be a PhD-level expert in history, especially because PhDs don't mean anything anymore, as we talked about in the opening.
I'm not saying that he needs to have a vast knowledge of the entire scope of world history.
The point is simply that a smart, inquisitive man We'll at least have a couple of historical subjects that he finds interesting and he enjoys learning about.
He doesn't have to be an expert in them, he just likes them, he's interested in them, and he likes to read about them, he likes to learn about them.
Now the chances are very substantial that a man who has no interest in history and no knowledge of it at all is pretty stupid.
The overlap between stupid and historically illiterate among men is extremely high.
Now it's not that being historically illiterate is the same thing as being stupid.
It's that historical illiteracy is one of the most glaringly obvious signs pointing to stupidity.
Just like we might say that wearing a size 46 in pants isn't the same thing as being morbidly obese.
It's technically possible that someone could have a 46 waist and not be obese.
Maybe they're seven and a half feet tall and 46 is actually slim for their height.
It's possible.
But in the vast majority of cases, a guy walking around in quadruple XL pants is extremely fat.
Just as in the majority of cases, a guy who's never voluntarily read a book about history in his life is a dumbass.
Now the great thing about my tweet on this subject is that it proved itself because the replies quickly filled with dumb guys who aren't interested in history trying to explain why not being interested in history doesn't make them dumb.
But their explanations were all very dumb because they're dumb.
There are many comments claiming that history is boring and unimportant and only nerds care about it.
I was informed over and over again that it's perfectly valid for a man to have little interest in any historical subject.
And that's true.
It is valid to be dumb in a legal sense.
You know, it's valid.
You're allowed to be dumb.
You can even vote and be dumb, unfortunately.
But that doesn't change the fact that it is dumb to have no interest in history.
That's a legally valid position, but it's not an intellectually valid one.
And it's the worst kind of dumb, because it's arrogant.
It's a dumb arrogance.
Like, you don't even have the decency to be humble in your dumbness.
Instead, you declare that nothing matters if it occurred before you were born.
You're not interested in anything that happened to occur before you entered the scene.
And because you've turned up your dumb little nose at everything that occurred in the world prior to the moment of your birth, you have no sense of perspective.
You don't even understand the things that are happening in the world today because you don't know anything about what precipitated those things.
You cannot have any insight into the state of things today if you don't know anything about how things were yesterday.
You cannot understand people.
You can't understand yourself if you don't know history.
Like, living your life today without ever studying history, it's like picking up a book and starting it somewhere in the middle without any concern for what happened in the 20 chapters that you skipped.
Now, I realize this analogy may fly over the heads of dummies who don't read in the first place, but the point stands.
And besides all that, history is full of stories that are just plain fascinating.
Like, how does this not interest you?
You're missing out on so many amazing adventures.
For example, I just finished a book called River of Darkness about the Spanish conquistador Francisco de Oriana, who in 1541 traveled over the Andes Mountains and into the Amazon.
And he got into the Amazon, and then they needed a ship.
So they set up a manufacturing facility, basically.
They built a ship from scratch.
They had to manufacture the nails first to build the ship, right down to the, they didn't have nails, right?
They're in the jungle.
There's no metal.
So they had to make the nails and then cut down all the trees and make the ship.
And then he sailed the entire length of the Amazon River, more than 4,000 miles, before making it to the Atlantic Ocean and sailing up to Venezuela.
Nobody had ever done that before.
The Amazon was completely unexplored and unknown.
Many men died along the way.
They battled hostile Indian tribes and wild animals and disease and starvation and exposure.
How could any man hear a story like that and say, eh, who cares?
Not interested.
Boring.
No thanks.
You have to have the intellectual depth of a puddle of piss on the bathroom floor if that's your reaction.
No offense.
Like, you have to be very stupid and very boring.
Not the kind of man any woman should want to date.
And that is why those historically illiterate men are today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
If I'm gonna sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certification.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
This is more for you and less for you.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
I want to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument.
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently?
Yeah.
This country is a piece of s***.
White.
Folks.
White.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist?
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
