Ep. 1437 - Brazil Bans Free Speech in the Name of Democracy. Are We Next?
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Brazil has essentially abolished free speech in its country as it shuts down X to prevent people from criticizing the government. You'd think the defenders of "democracy" in this country would condemn this sort of thing, but instead, they're cheering it on. Also, Tim Walz's own family apparently isn't excited about the prospect of him being in the White House. A new report suggests that our phones really are eavesdropping on us. And a rash of TikTok influencers have been groveling and apologizing recently for allegedly racist tweets from years ago.
Ep.1437
- - -
DailyWire+:
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | Get tickets NOW: https://www.amiracist.com
Get your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://amzn.to/3KfSEFc
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN at http://www.ExpressVPN.com/Walsh
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
ZipRecruiter - Try ZipRecruiter for FREE: https://www.ziprecruiter.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, Brazil has essentially abolished free speech in its country as it shuts down X to prevent people from criticizing the government.
You'd think the defenders of quote-unquote democracy in this country would condemn that sort of thing, but instead they're cheering it on.
Also, Tim Walz's own family apparently isn't excited about the prospect of him being in the White House.
A new report suggests that our phones really are eavesdropping on us, and a rash of TikTok influencers have been groveling and apologizing recently for allegedly racist tweets from years ago.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show
In just eight days my new movie Am I Racist hits theaters nationwide
I infiltrated the left's DEI circus, and it's more absurd than you could possibly imagine.
The only way to truly appreciate it is on the big screen.
So go to amiracist.com for tickets and showtimes now.
You know what really grinds my gears, as they say?
The illusion of privacy in our digital age.
You know, all those times you've used incognito mode thinking that you're browsing in secret?
Well, you're about as hidden as a neon sign in Times Square.
That's right, my friends.
Check the fine print.
All your online activity is still 100% visible to a ton of third parties.
Your internet service provider?
They can see everything.
Your mobile network?
Same deal.
And if you're on a Wi-Fi at work or school, your boss or professor can track every site you visit.
It's like living in a digital prison where Big Brother is always watching.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on having my entire online life laid bare for the world to see.
That's why I use ExpressVPN.
It's like a cloak of invisibility for your internet traffic.
ExpressVPN reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers so third parties can't see your browsing history.
Besides hiding your IP address, it's also ridiculously easy to use.
You don't need to be a tech wizard to protect yourself.
Just fire up the app and click one button to get protected.
Works on all your devices too, so whether you're on your phone, laptop, or tablet, you're covered.
Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
That's exprssvpn.com slash Walsh to get three extra months for free with my exclusive link expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
One of the main lines of attack against Jair Bolsonaro, who served as president of Brazil until 2022, was one that we're all very familiar with at this point.
Liberals claim that Bolsonaro was an enemy of democracy, quote unquote.
Media outlets, both in the United States and Brazil, claim that Bolsonaro was an autocrat who wanted to suspend the rule of law and use the force of government to punish his political enemies.
And this message resonated with Brazilians because some very prominent figures promoted it, including a former prosecutor turned Supreme Court judge named Alexander de Moraes.
And among the Brazilian left, de Moraes was something of a hero for taking on Bolsonaro.
Most notably, the judge presided over a tribunal that banned Bolsonaro from running for office for eight years.
Why was that?
Well, Bolsonaro allegedly spread lies about voting machines, quote-unquote, which supposedly inspired a mob to ransack Congress, the presidential palace, and other government buildings.
It was basically Brazil's January 6th.
So, in the name of protecting democracy, the judge prevented people from voting for Bolsonaro for the better part of a decade.
He did to Bolsonaro exactly what the left wanted to do to Donald Trump, but failed.
So, what are the defenders of democracy up to in Brazil just two years later?
How are these crusaders for democratic norms faring in 2024?
Well, as you may have heard, De Moraes just issued maybe the single most undemocratic and authoritarian court decision In the modern history of Brazil, he has unilaterally ordered a total ban on Elon Musk's social media platform X. Nobody in Brazil, a country where more than 20 million people used X, is legally allowed to use the platform anymore.
Anybody caught using a VPN to bypass this restriction can be fined roughly $9,000 per day, which is about six times the average Brazilian's monthly salary.
Additionally, De Moraes has fined X more than $3 million as well.
He's also frozen the assets of Elon Musk's company Starlink, which provides internet access to hundreds of thousands of Brazilians living in remote areas.
The point was to compel Starlink, an independent internet provider, to ban X as well.
And on top of that, The Brazilian court system is now pressuring SpaceX, even though they have nothing, obviously, to do with X. So, SpaceX now has to pull employees out of Brazil.
The judge has gone to war with X for a very simple reason.
The company refused to block certain accounts that, in the eyes of the Brazilian government, harmed democratic institutions in Brazil.
And then, X refused to appoint an in-person local legal representative in Brazil.
Because the judge had threatened to arrest the representative to extract concessions from X. So, in order to protect democratic institutions, quote-unquote supposedly, tens of millions of Brazilians can no longer access the single most popular news app in the country.
They've turned to the corporate press to learn what they're allowed to hear.
Only approved narratives are allowed in Brazil right now.
For Elon Musk, the showdown in Brazil is obviously a major test.
He's long maintained that he'll obey the laws of whatever countries his companies are operating in, but he maintains that Brazil's judges are violating Brazil's constitution, which isn't exactly a hard case to make at this point.
This week, The Economist took a closer look at the judge who issued this order against X and Starlink, and here's what they found.
Quote, Mr. Moraes also has form.
He is a man who likes and understands power.
He has extensive contacts in the federal police, military, and intelligence services.
Other decisions have made the court look authoritarian.
In 2019, Mr. Moraes was put in charge of investigating misinformation about the Supreme Court and threats against the court's members and their relatives.
These had spiked after the election of Mr. Bolsonaro.
The fake news inquiry was contentious from the start.
Normally, investigations are opened by the public prosecutor or the police.
By giving itself the power to initiate investigations, the Supreme Court became victim, prosecutor, and judge all at once.
No time limit was set.
There is no legal definition for disinformation in Brazil.
And Mr. Moraes has not made public which accounts he has ordered shut and why.
So this is a violation of one of the most basic principles of every functioning legal system, which is that courts are only supposed to resolve legal disputes that are brought to them.
That is their one and only job.
Some party, whether it's a citizen or the government or some other entity, needs to bring a case to the courts, and then the courts rule on the case that's brought to them.
Once the courts have the authority to generate cases on their own, and make up arbitrary rules to enforce, then they're not really courts anymore.
Instead of judges, you have de facto dictators.
And that's what's happening right now to Elon Musk and his companies in Brazil.
Now, you'd hope that an incident like this would trigger immediate condemnations from the State Department in this country.
After all, the Biden administration claims to care very deeply about democracy.
It's essentially all they really talk about now.
But there's been no condemnation from the mainstream left in this country.
In fact, if you listen to the corporate press, you'll find a handful of reports essentially blaming Elon Musk for objecting to what the courts in Brazil are doing.
Here, for example, is the BBC, which for some reason is pretending that Taylor Lorenz, who openly hates Elon Musk, is an impartial expert on this topic.
Watch.
Technology columnist for the Washington Post, Taylor Lorenz, explains how this ruling came about.
This has been a months-long battle.
It basically stems from Elon refusing to take down content related to Brazil's attempted insurrection back in 2022.
And then he was ordered to, you know, have a lawyer.
You have to, under Brazilian law, have a legal representative in the country.
He was given 24 hours to appoint a legal representative in the country or the platform would be banned.
He refused to do that.
So he's...
He's kind of on this, had this sort of a showdown.
He could have prevented this ban, and he chose not to.
He could have prevented the ban, but he chose not to, she says.
Notice how the Brazilian government, which just shut down an entire social media app for millions of people, has no agency in Taylor Lorenz's analysis.
A private company refused to do the bidding of the Brazilian government, and therefore it's the private company's fault that they got shut down.
That's how Taylor Lorenz, who works for the Washington Post, is selling this decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court.
It's how the BBC is presenting the news.
It's not hard to see what's going on here.
Brazil is the template for mass censorship in the United States.
If they can pull it off in Brazil, they're going to try to pull it off here.
That's why the corporate press is presenting Elon Musk as the villain in this scenario.
The media has a vested interest in shutting down X because it's one of their biggest competitors.
Random posts on X get more viewers than CNN's entire primetime lineup.
So, in order to lay the groundwork for shutting down X in this country, they're saying that Elon Musk basically had it coming in Brazil.
And it's not just the media that's trying to send this message.
Senior figures in the Democrat Party are doing it too.
For example, Keith Ellison is the Attorney General of the state of Minnesota.
He's the chief legal officer of a major state.
He's also closely aligned with Kamala Harris' campaign.
He just spoke at the DNC a few weeks ago as well.
And here's what Keith Ellison says about what's happening to Elon Musk's companies in Brazil.
He says, quote, Obrigado, Brazil.
Which translates to, thank you, Brazil.
Again, Keith Ellison is not some backbench politician from a no-name congressional district.
He's the chief law officer of Minnesota.
And he's endorsing the total shutdown of a major social media platform because it wouldn't censor the political opponents of the government.
Politicians like Keith Ellison crave censorship because they're corrupt.
They only care about power and they're willing to lie in order to get it.
Remember what Keith Ellison did during the George Floyd riots.
Ellison's office hid body cam footage showing that George Floyd said, I can't breathe several times while he was struggling with cops in the backseat of the police cruiser long before he was on the ground with a knee near his neck.
It was obviously relevant information because it suggested that Floyd was having a fatal overdose and that he couldn't breathe because he had taken a lethal quantity of fentanyl.
So, Keith Ellison's office suppressed the footage.
Democrats like Keith Ellison want total control of social media platforms like SX so they can suppress information like that even more often and even more easily.
They want to be able to shut down any information or opinions that contradict their preferred narrative.
And that's why they're thrilled with what's happening in Brazil.
It's also why they have no problem with what the Biden administration is doing to Tulsi Gabbard right now.
Gabbard has emerged as one of the most effective critics of the modern Democrat Party.
She has what no prominent Democrat has, which is integrity.
She was on the fast track to be a senior official in the Democrat Party, even serving as vice chair of the DNC, but she threw all that away because she wanted to follow her principles, particularly concerning foreign affairs, instead of seeking power.
So, Tulsi Gabbard.
Can't be controlled by party elites.
And what's their solution to that?
Well, they put her on a terror watch list.
Watch.
Now, my own government has placed me on a secret terror watch list, targeting me as a potential domestic terror threat.
Why?
Political retaliation.
I spoke out about how dangerous Kamala Harris would be to our nation if she were to be elected as president, and why the American people should be very concerned.
Just before boarding a flight on July 23rd, my husband and I were pulled aside for additional TSA screening.
Our electronics were swabbed for traces of explosives, and when we landed, my husband was pulled aside for another round of additional screening.
On the next several flights that we took, our boarding passes were marked with the quad S.
And we were subjected to in-depth searches by the TSA every single time, each time taking 30 to 45 minutes.
Every inch of our body patted down.
On August 4th, Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers came forward with very disturbing information.
They revealed that I had been added to a secret terror watch list run by the TSA called Quiet Skies on July 23rd.
This is the very same day my husband and I began to be subjected to those in-depth TSA searches.
Now, in a sane country, this would be leading every nightly newscast in the United States.
I mean, there's no reason for a political figure like Tulsi Gabbard to be placed on any kind of terror watch list, obviously, or to receive 30 minutes of extra screening every time she tries to fly.
The only conceivable explanation is that this is a federal program intended to harass and intimidate her because she's not following the party line.
So they call her a terrorist for that reason.
But she's able to speak freely about what's happening to her on X, at least for now.
That's the platform where Tulsi Gabbard posted the video I just showed you.
It's where she and many other political dissidents in many other countries can speak their minds for the most part.
At the very least, it's a freer platform than any of the alternatives, and that's why the government in both this country and Brazil wants to shut X down.
It's also why France is trying to shut Telegram down and jail its founder.
We're in the middle of a historic war on the freedom of speech in countries where it would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
If they're allowed to succeed in places like Brazil and France, it's not going to be long until they try the same thing here.
Our constitution isn't going to protect us if the people in charge just decide to ignore it.
Brazil and France have constitutions that supposedly protect the freedom of speech, and we see how that's working out.
The only solution is to do exactly what Elon Musk and Tulsi Gabbard are doing, which is to respond to censorship and intimidation with more speech.
Call out what they're doing.
And in November, do everything you can to prevent these tyrants from seizing any more power than they already have.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs.
As of September 2023, GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University.
Private.
Christian.
Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Here's a story from the post-millennial.
The Washington State Department of Health has released a taxpayer-funded report claiming white people didn't care that people of color were dying during the pandemic, a document that provided no sources to back up the outrageous claim.
The DOH posted a chorus of COVID voices from the front lines on X claiming the Insight Report would help us all reflect on lessons learned during the pandemic.
Funding for the report was provided in part through a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to the report, sometimes white people disengaged on safety when they learned people of color needed help.
However, the document provided no sources to substantiate the claim or any others made throughout the report.
Ironically, after making the racist and divisive claim, the report added, Don't foster divisions in our community.
It collectively costs us human lives.
The cover of the report included images of protesters who rallied in large groups during the pandemic despite the stay-at-home orders.
The report demanded that the DOH use COVID as an opportunity to invest in youth of color and incarcerated youth by celebrating their gifts in ways that don't stigmatize or typify them when society fails them.
So I wanted to start with this from the post-millennial because this is what, and there are a million examples of this that pop up every day, this is just the latest, but this is what the anti-racist grift is all about.
It's part of what we're trying to expose in our film, Amiracist, premiering September 13th.
Get tickets at Amiracist.com.
What they do is they just invent, they fabricate out of thin air some form of prejudice and then tell you that you, as a white person, If you are a white person watching this, that you are a perpetrator of this prejudice, no matter what you think of the matter.
And you might protest.
You might say, well, wait a minute.
That's not true.
You know, I care when black people die.
What are you talking about?
I care just as much as I don't want people to die at all.
I don't care what race they are.
And you might say that, but they'll say, no, no, you don't care.
Or you don't care as much as you care when white people die.
And they, the anti-racist experts, they will tell you what you really think and what you really feel.
And they'll tell you what's in your head.
This is so much of the grift.
This is what it consists of.
It's one of the things that jumped out at me the most making the film and talking to
these people, being in the room with them, this insistence that they can read our minds,
that they can tell us what we're thinking.
And the thoughts that they try to put in our minds, that they project onto us, are often
just incredibly absurd.
I remember we talked to one woman who doesn't appear in the film because it's only 90 minutes and you have to cut a lot of stuff out, unfortunately.
There's like a five hour cut of this film that we could put out there.
But anyway, we talked to some DEI consultant.
Kate Slater, the woman you saw in the clip yesterday, ended up basically taking her place in the movie.
We kind of interviewed a few people for that slot, that first interview slot.
But anyway, with this woman, I had kind of an extended back and forth on this very point, because she was going on and on about unconscious bias, the racism and prejudice that lives in your unconscious mind.
She had a whole system that she invented Explaining your unconscious mind to you.
And I kept trying to get her to explain how could she be in a position to tell me what I'm thinking.
And she couldn't.
But this is also the whole point of the unconscious bias idea.
That's really one of the most insidious innovations to come out of the anti-racist grift.
Is this idea of unconscious bias, which is what this report is rooted in, that, well, if you're white, you don't care when black people are dying in a pandemic or whatever.
What they would say, because again, if you protest that, if you say, well, that's not true, what do you mean?
They say, well, it's unconscious.
You don't realize that it's happening.
Because it's in your mind, but it's unconscious.
So if you're telling me there are thoughts in my head that I'm not thinking, which is already a bit of a problem, like how does that work?
But there are thoughts in my head that I'm not aware of, yet you're aware of them?
How could you have access to those thoughts if I don't have access to them?
These people really, they kind of try to play the role of like psychics or fortune tellers.
That's really what it is.
Okay, the Postmillennial also has this.
Relatives of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris' running mate Tim Walz appeared to be all in for GOP candidate Donald Trump, with a photo showing members of the family posing in Trump shirts.
The photo posted to X by former Nebraska GOP gubernatorial candidate Charles W. Herbster showed eight people posing for a photograph in front of a flag that read, Trump 2024, take America back.
Each of the family members sported a shirt that read, Nebraska Walzes for Trump.
Herbster wrote, Tim Walz's family back in Nebraska wants you to know something.
Speaking with the Daily Mail, a representative for Herbster said that the people in the photograph are related to the Minnesota governor through his grandfather's brother.
And this comes as Tim Walz's brother, Jeff, who lives in Florida, has spoken out on Facebook against his brother being in the White House.
He said, quote, I'm 100% opposed to all his ideology.
My family wasn't given any notice that he was selected and denied security the days after.
He added that he hasn't spoken to his brother in eight years.
When asked whether he would support the MAGA movement and endorse Trump, Jeff Walls said, quote, I've thought hard about doing something like that.
I'm torn between that and just keeping my family out of it.
The stories I could tell, not the type of character you want making decisions about your future.
Speaking about his brother.
So look, I'm going to, I'll say this.
And I know that I'm being, I'm a big softy on this one.
I'm a big lib.
I'm a total lib on this one.
Because I've seen a lot of conservatives sharing this.
It's like Tim Walz's brother comes out against him.
Other family members came out.
And a lot of conservatives are, you know, delighted by that and saying, well, what does it tell you about this guy that his own brother doesn't want him to be vice president?
And I understand that point.
I understand that point.
But I gotta say, I don't like to see Tim Walz's family coming out against him.
I don't like it when family members do this, no matter who they're attacking, no matter what the politics are.
I said this with RFK Jr.' 's family.
All of his siblings came out and denounced him.
And I said the same thing, and I feel the same way with Tim Walz.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I think that Tim Walz is a bad guy.
I think he's a total creep.
I think he's awful.
I think he'll be a terrible vice president.
I think he's a terrible person, so no question about that.
It would be hard for you to criticize Tim Walz in terms that I would disagree with, or that I would think are too harsh.
But you don't attack your family.
You don't take sides against the family.
I'm with Michael Corleone on this one.
You don't take sides against the family.
Your family.
You just don't do it.
Even if your brother or family member is a creepy leftist, is a weirdo communist, you still don't.
You just never do.
I'll say, if my brother, you know, I have a brother.
I have five siblings.
One brother.
If my brother went insane, this is inconceivable really, but if he went like insane and became a crazy leftist and ran for office and somehow made it high up in the ranks of the Democrat Party, I would never say a word criticizing him on this show or any other platform.
Not a single word.
You know, he's not one time.
I wouldn't condone what he's saying.
I wouldn't defend it.
I wouldn't suddenly become a leftist myself because he is.
But I wouldn't attack him or denounce him because that's family.
And you don't do that to family.
Not publicly.
Now, in private, I'd be telling him that he's full of sh** and he's an idiot and he's gotta stop.
I'd tell him that privately, absolutely.
But not in public.
You just don't do that in public to family.
And I've always said this.
This is one of the reasons why, if you think back to the Cuomos, You know, the scandal, supposed scandal with Chris Cuomo on CNN, where he got in trouble for playing favorites with his brother and not being critical of his brother and all of that.
Andrew Cuomo.
And I said at the time, Andrew Cuomo, terrible governor, terrible person, responsible for the deaths of like tens of thousands of people, awful, awful stuff.
But, and Chris Cuomo, I can't say I'm a big fan, but on that, I get it.
It's like, it's your brother.
You're not, what are you going to go on publicly and denounce your own brother?
Who does that?
You don't do that.
So, I just don't like to see this.
I really, I hate to see it.
I really do.
Here's an interesting report from the Daily Mail.
Millions of people have long suspected it, but now a leak suggests that our phones really are listening to us.
An apparent pitch deck from one of Facebook's alleged marketing partners appears to detail how the firm eavesdrops on users' conversations to create targeted ads.
In a slideshow, Cox Media Group Claims that its active listening software uses AI to collect and analyze real-time intent data by listening to what you say through your phone, laptop, or home assistant microphone.
Advertisers can pair this voice data with behavioral data to target in-market consumers, the deck states.
Pitch Deck goes out on to tout Facebook, Google, and Amazon as clients of CMG, suggesting they could be using its active listening service to target users.
The Pitch Deck was leaked to reporters at 404 Media that showcased the capabilities of active listening software to prospective customers.
Since the story broke, Google removed the media group from their Partners Program website In an emailed statement to DailyMail.com, a Meta spokesperson said Meta does not use your phone's microphone for ads and we've been public about this for years.
We're reaching out to CMG to get them to clarify that their program is not based on Meta data.
AMC, Amazon rather, responded to 404 Media by stating that its ads has never worked with CMG on this program and has no plans to do so.
The spokesperson added that If one of its marketing partners violates its rules, the company will take action, leaving the status of Amazon's relationship with CMG somewhat unclear.
The slideshow details the six-step process that CMG's Active Listening software uses to collect consumers' voice data through seemingly any microphone-equipped device, including your smartphone, laptop, or home assistant.
It's unclear from the slideshow whether the Active Listening software is eavesdropping constantly or only at specific times when the phone mic is activated, such as during a call.
It's still not clear.
This program, is it when you're talking on the phone, it's listening to what you're saying, or is it just listening all the time when you have your phone on you?
Either way, terrifying.
Doesn't surprise me that our phones are listening to us.
It's been evident for a long time.
It's horrifying.
It's infuriating.
It's not surprising.
And yet, I think that in the majority of cases, I still think that in the majority of cases when your phone presents an advertisement to you that seems like it's reading your mind or listening to your conversations, right?
Because you were just talking about whatever and then you go on your phone and you see an ad for it.
We've all been through that a million times.
And then you think, oh, it must be listening to me.
Well, it's clear that sometimes that has been happening.
But I think in many cases that's not the case.
I think in many cases when it serves up an ad where it seems like it was reading your mind or listening to you, it wasn't actually listening.
What's actually happening in so many cases I think is so much worse than that.
Because the truth is that the algorithms are predictive.
And they predict what you want to see.
They predict which products, which ads will be relevant to you.
And they predict with great accuracy most of the time.
And that's not because they're always listening to you, although again, apparently that is happening also.
But they don't even need to most of the time because they're tracking everything you do or say, post, click on, search for, look at on the internet.
And they're tracking all of that.
And that we know for sure they're doing.
They track all of that.
The algorithms come up with a model, a predictive model, so that they can serve you advertisements and monetize you, monetize your existence basically.
And so there may be some actual eavesdropping going on, but to me the far more terrifying thing is that they can serve you some ad about something you were just talking about without listening.
That they can predict, basically, that you would be talking about this thing because the algorithms have tracked and categorized and cataloged you And have known so much about you, based on tracking everything, you know, all of your movements on the internet, that the algorithms have become that intrusive and that sort of accurate.
And they've pegged you to that extent.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, even if we get to a point where we can be sure the phones aren't listening, We still have not solved the problem, I suppose.
All right, John Cena got some attention this week on Shannon Sharpe's podcast, talking about why he doesn't want kids.
And this is kind of a longer conversation.
We'll listen to about a minute of it to get the thrust of his point.
Here it is.
You didn't want kids.
Where are you on kids now?
I don't want them.
You don't?
No, I'm still there.
I'm 47.
I don't have them.
You don't want a little Johnny?
Or Joanna?
That's great.
And that's usually what everyone says.
And I got to tell you, it's not the easiest out there because, you know, A lot of why we're here is to reproduce.
I have a certain curiosity about life, and I also know the investment that it takes.
And my biggest fear is, as someone who's driven, many times stubborn and selfish, I try to approach the world with kindness and curiosity, but I don't think I'm personally ready, nor will I ever be, to invest the time it needs to be a great parent.
Because I want to live life for all it is.
And I still have a lot to do.
So we've, of course, heard many celebrities talk about this subject.
I will say that John Cena does a better job of explaining his decision to not have kids than, say, Chelsea Handler does.
Very, very low bar to get over, but he does at least get over that bar.
And he's not obnoxious or aggressive about it, so I can respect that.
He's not out there pushing the idea that you shouldn't have kids.
He's not really promoting or glorifying it.
He didn't bring this up.
You know, Shannon Sharp brought it up.
He answered the question.
And so I don't have any real beef with John Cena on this point, but Since they discussed the subject, I do want to respond to the point that he made.
He says he's not going to have kids because he wants to live life for all it is, and he still has a lot to do.
That's basically his point.
I have to say, just for any younger people listening to this, and who maybe find that John Cena's logic resonates with them, You should know that you can still live life for all it is and do all that you want to do and all that you need to do and have a family.
You can do all of that.
In fact, I would say that having a family is very much a part of living life for all it is.
And it's even greater motivation to go out and do all that you need to do and want to do.
Now, John Cena is obviously successful in his field, but the mistake that many younger men will make And women, but he's a man and I think it's more likely that men are going to listen to him and follow his example.
So, the mistake that many younger men will make is to think that, well, in order to be successful, they have to follow this model of not having kids.
And I hear this all the time.
This is a very common misconception that you encounter.
But here's the thing, for every childless man who became successful, I could show you a hundred men with children who became successful.
And in many cases, those successful men may not have become as successful as they did had they never started families.
That's the truth in many of these cases.
I know you've heard me say this many times, but In my case, before I had kids, I was stuck, you know, basically kind of treading water as a young man, as many young men do and are right now.
But you know, when I was still single, I was just kind of like dreaming of the success I wanted to have in the future.
Um, but not seeing any real clear path to it.
And, uh, I think lacking the ambition to pursue it.
In any kind of, in the way that it needed to be pursued.
It wasn't until I got married and had kids that I began to really move towards those goals.
And now, does that mean that if I never got married and had kids that I never would have found any success in life?
Well, it's impossible to say.
You know, that's a whole different life that I could have lived and it's impossible to say what that would have been.
But I think most likely, The answer is yes, there would have been a lot less success if I hadn't gotten married and had kids because that's been my, it's like my motivating, it's been my primary motivating force for the last 13 years.
And for me certainly, it was much more motivating than any kind of motivation I had prior to that.
Because the problem is when it's just you and you're alone, Yeah, you want to be able to take care of yourself.
You want to live a good life for yourself.
Fine.
But that's just not enough for most people.
I think especially as a man.
Because the truth is, if it's just me, I can get by.
I don't need much.
I can get by.
Pretty low maintenance.
When you have a family to care for, then you start caring about those things a lot more.
And I think that's the case for a lot of men, so you don't have to choose.
All right, finally, Mary Sue, the website Mary Sue, the MarySue.com, kind of a feminist news site, I guess, has this headline.
Am I racist movie?
Matt Walsh answers his own question in the title.
The article is written by Rachel Leishman.
She writes, The Daily Wire hosts are getting even more ridiculous with their antics.
Bad Matt Walsh, not to be confused with the comedian, a.k.a.
Good Matt Walsh, has a movie that looks as redundant as its title.
The movie is called Am I Racist?
It's Matt Walsh, so dot dot dot, yes?
Side note, how is the title Am I Racist redundant?
I don't want to get into semantics here, Rachel, but do you know what the word redundant means?
Am I racist?
As a question, it's three words long.
There's not a lot of redundancy here.
I'm not sure you understand what these words mean, but we won't belabor that point.
Sadly, if you watch the trailer for this movie, you'll be disappointed to learn that it isn't someone making fun of Matt Walsh.
No, instead, it's the actual bad Matt Walsh thinking he's unpacking what being racist means by mocking the liberal ideology that we should unlearn racism.
Can we get the good Matt Walsh making a movie making fun of the bad one?
Please?
I second that, by the way.
I think that would be amazing.
If the other Matt Walsh wanted to make a movie attacking me, Phenomenal idea.
I'll be in that movie.
I'll accept a role in that film.
I'll do it unpaid, even.
I'll play the villain.
I'll play myself as the villain in the Matt Walsh vs. Matt Walsh film.
I think it's a great idea.
I think we should do that.
She continues, The point he's seemingly trying to make is that the people who are labeled racist do not think about race as often as the people applying the label might think.
Actually, that is kind of the point.
You got it, Rachel.
That's the point.
You got it.
I'm surprised.
I'm surprised you got it.
But she has the point, and then she proceeds to lose it.
She says he goes about proving this point by asking people about being racist, which kind of negates the entire conceit of this movie.
What?
The title is Am I Racist?
The title is Am I Racist?
And so I'm asking people about racism.
How does that negate the conceit of the movie?
That is the conceit!
What are you talking about?
That's like if you watch the movie Gladiator, and you see gladiators fighting, and you say, there's gladiators fighting in the movie Gladiator!
That negates the conceit of the movie!
No, what do you mean?
It's the opposite of that.
It is the conceit.
Maybe you don't know what conceit means, or negate.
So Rachel, you're throwing a lot of words around that you don't seem to know what they mean, but I guess you're using the thesaurus while you're writing this, but you might want to use a dictionary too.
She says, of course racists don't think they're being racist.
The point most people who are actively trying to promote anti-racist texts slash ideals are making is that these people are ignorant of their own racism and they don't care to change it.
Walsh is basically proving that through this absurd documentary.
But he's too lost in his own racism to recognize that.
The logline for the movie is as follows.
Daily Wire host and filmmaker Matt Walsh transforms himself into a certified diversity, equity, and inclusion expert only to uncover a world where profit, not principle, drives the agenda.
So I guess that what Walsh is attempting to do is show how inclusive spaces don't love when a white man rolls in and demands they answer his asinine questions?
I don't understand what the point of this movie is, outside of Walsh and his little cronies at The Daily Wire laughing at people who are actively trying to be better people.
The writing here is so bad, I can barely read it.
This is really bad writing.
He's going into anti-racist spaces and mocking them.
So yes, he is racist.
The whole movie is telling.
Not only does this comedy not even have a funny trailer, but it's also long for a fake documentary at an hour and 41 minutes.
Dude, this is not a movie.
This is torture.
By the way, an hour and 41 minutes is pretty short.
90 minutes is kind of where you want to land.
An hour and 41 is where we ended up.
These days especially, when you've got Marvel movies that are six and a half hours long, it's pretty short.
What I love about this is that it reads like a review of the film.
A very poorly written review.
Except the author hasn't watched the film.
Because it's not out yet.
And we did not send the Mary Sue a screener for the film.
We will!
I'm happy to.
In fact, we should.
Let's do that.
I'll send them a screener.
So they can see it and complain about it even more.
All I can say, Rachel, is that if you're offended by the trailer, And just the concept or the conceit of the film, how literally you understand it, just wait until you see the movie.
It gets so much worse.
I promise you that.
It's so much worse than you think.
That's what I can tell you.
I do want to address one thing she says though.
She says, the point most people who are actively trying to promote anti-racist texts slash ideals are making is that these people are ignorant of their own racism and they don't care to change it.
Again, a very poorly constructed sentence.
Difficult to understand.
But, from what I can interpret of it, it does go right back to what we talked about a minute ago, that these people think they can read your mind.
Right?
Well, guess what, Rachel?
And I'm going to really scandalize you here.
I'm going to shock your sensibilities.
But here's the truth.
If somebody doesn't think they're racist, then they aren't racist.
It really is as simple as that.
If you don't think you're racist, you're not.
So if you're wondering if you're racist, well, I don't know.
Do you think you are?
Oh, you don't?
Oh, well, then you're not.
That's it.
Now, sure, a person could say they aren't racist and be racist.
People can lie about things, obviously.
But if you truly, genuinely, in your heart and mind, don't think you're racist, then you're not.
Because racism is a state of mind.
It's a thing that you think.
Racism is a thought process.
And if you don't have that thought process, then you're not racist by definition.
So this idea that, well, they're ignorant of their own racism.
They can't be.
If they're ignorant of it, then it's not there.
Okay?
It's like saying that It's like saying this person thinks that they don't like vanilla ice cream, but only because they're ignorant of the fact that they do like vanilla ice cream.
What do you mean?
The only person who could speak to what kind of ice cream they like is this person, and they've already told you.
If you think you don't like it, if you've tried it and you think you don't like it, well then you don't like it.
That's it.
That's the definition of not liking it.
We can't really dissect it any more than that.
Um, and, uh, and that's the way it goes with any kind of mental process or preference that you might have or whatever.
And so if you think you aren't racist, um, then you're not.
And, uh, yeah, it is that simple, Rachel, but we'll get you, we'll get you a screener out so you can see the whole movie and be, uh, quite a bit more, um, triggered by it than, than you already are.
You know a service is solid when it gets great word of mouth.
That's why I wanted to let you know what people are saying about our sponsor, ZipRecruiter.
The marketing manager of Nexkey said, The number one reason why we love ZipRecruiter is because it's so fast and so easy.
And the CEO of WallsNeedLove said, I posted a job at ZipRecruiter and found my lead graphic designer within just a few days.
The takeaway?
Well, if you're hiring, ZipRecruiter excels at finding qualified candidates fast.
And right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter's powerful batching technology identifies top talent for your roles quickly, and immediately after you post your job, it starts showing you qualified people for it.
In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
So, see why ZipRecruiter is the hiring site employers prefer most based on the review site G2, Try it for free at this exclusive web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter.
The smartest way to hire.
You may have noticed that I made headlines during the DNC because I walked right into their circus and exposed just how gullible and desperate the left really is.
I handed out cards for Project2025.com to a bunch of clueless liberals.
These people, thinking they'd uncovered some conservative master plan, couldn't wait to spread it around.
My personal favorite moment was when I got Don Lemon himself to promote the Project2025.com website on camera.
Imagine that.
The left's favorite mouthpiece unwittingly advertising for my new movie, Am I Racist?
Well, it's in theater September 13th.
That's eight days from now.
Get your tickets.
Check showtimes now.
Amiracist.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Well, I may be a certified DEI instructor now and I may have a new movie coming out called Am I Racist?
But even given my vast and impressive expertise in the field of anti-racism and equity,
I have to admit that there are still some trends in the space that can escape my
notice.
After all, no one man can possibly keep track of all the new and varied developments in anti-racism, even somebody as qualified as myself.
So it was with some surprise that I saw this tweet the other day from my friend Brett Cooper here at The Daily Wire, and she wrote, quote, In the last few weeks, five or six major influencers have had decade-old racist comments magically resurface.
They've all apologized to the mob and are desperately trying to repent.
Haven't seen this much vitriol over things people said when they were 13 since 2020.
Happy election season, anti-racism is back in vogue, just in time for Matt Walsh's new movie, of course.
Close quote.
Now, I had to do a little digging into this, and that's when I came across this story from USA Today.
Here's the headline, quote, Alex Earle apologizes again for using racial slurs directed at black people a decade ago.
Alex Earle, if you're not familiar, and I certainly wasn't, is apparently a breakout social media star who became famous for posting videos about her life as a college student at the University of Miami.
Why that's interesting to anybody, like that's who, why would it, it sounds like the least interesting, her life as a college student at the University of Miami.
Who cares?
What?
Why would anyone want to see that?
But anyway, people did, and so she's a breakout star.
Here's how the article describes her crimes against humanity.
Quote, earlier this week, the popular podcaster broke her silence on screenshots from when she was 13 that show her using a racial slur, which I've been circulating online.
Earl, unless it's supposed to be early.
I don't know.
It's E-A-R-L-E.
I assume the E is silent.
Confirmed the screenshots were real and apologized for her word choices as a team.
The screenshots were shared as far back as two years ago, but started gaining traction earlier this month.
Earl said that she received advice to not address the issue and accept her responsibility for not speaking out until
now.
So, a woman who's now 23 years old has been badgered into apologizing for a couple of posts she made when she was 13.
Before I even get into what the post said, there's no conceivable way that this should be a story in a national newspaper.
It shouldn't even be a story in a gossip blog.
I mean, it's obviously transparently insane to care what any 23-year-old anywhere in the world said when that person was 13 years old.
I mean, I don't even care what a 23-year-old says when they're 23, much less when they're 13.
Every single 13-year-old on the planet has said, like, many stupid things in their lives And that's been true throughout history.
There's no reason to care about what 13-year-olds say just because technology now allows us to access their past statements anytime we want.
There is, in fact, I'll say this.
There is literally nothing that a 13-year-old could ever say, no matter how terrible, that I would consider at all relevant when that 13-year-old is an adult.
I don't care if they're, like, calling for a genocide or something.
All I need to know is, oh, they were 13?
Who cares?
Who cares?
That's especially true when, as is the case here, the 13-year-old didn't actually say anything with any malice to anyone.
So here's an Instagram post showing what exactly Earl is being attacked for.
And you can see it there.
So as a 13-year-old, she used the naughty word that Denzel Washington was fond of using in the movie Training Day.
And that's it.
That's the whole scandal.
She used the variant of the N-word that ends in A when she was barely a teenager.
And she wasn't trying to attack anyone for their race while she was doing it.
And yet this apparently triggered a scandal that went on for a very long time in the TikTok community, culminating in this apology-slash-hostage video.
Watch.
First off, I want to say, before I get into blabbing more about me, that I am so, so sorry to everyone in the black community and the black community in my audience that I let down.
I just want to say, and I just want to put this out here for you guys, that that's not Who I am as a person.
That's not the way I speak.
It's not what I stand for.
That's not the way my friends speak.
Like, I don't think that's cool.
I don't want any young girls watching this and thinking that because I haven't said anything, I think it's okay or that it's cool or whatever.
It doesn't matter the context.
It doesn't matter the age.
Like, it was wrong.
And I admit that.
Well, so you always hear this, the context doesn't matter.
Of course the context matters.
Anytime you say anything, the context matters.
We can't even begin to interpret anything that a person says without understanding the context in which they say it.
And your age matters too.
Of course.
Children say dumb stuff all the time.
That doesn't merit any further explanation.
Doesn't merit a groveling apology video.
It's a fact of life.
And if we're going to start cancelling people for stuff they did when they were 13, we might as well... We might as well bring up how they behaved in kindergarten.
Okay?
Like, they... Whatever.
They stole a glue stick.
They threw a glue stick at someone's head in kindergarten.
Let's make a scandal out of that.
There's no end to this purity spiral.
Of course, the point of this whole charade is to assert the dominance of the ideology that underpins DEI, which demands your total acquiescence at all times, especially if you're white.
You don't get to use logic or reason to defend yourself.
Your only option is to grovel.
At least, that's what you're supposed to think.
And that's the real message Alex Earle just sent to her millions of fans.
That's what the outrage mob really wanted.
And as Brett said, there's a lot of this going on lately.
The fake outrage surrounding the TikTok star Brooke Scofield is even more nauseating.
Here's how the Independent describes her transgression.
Quote, "Earlier this week, a number of past racially insensitive tweets made by Schofield
resurfaced after they were published by the popular celebrity gossip account Pop Crave.
In a string of posts, Schofield argued that the death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of
George Zimmerman, who was then a member of the Florida Community's Neighborhood Watch,
wasn't the result of racial profiling."
Guaranteed if Zimmerman shot a white guy, this wouldn't even be a story, she tweeted on July 14, 2013.
Newsflash, this wasn't a crime of racism, it was self-defense.
So, that's what Schofield, I don't know who this Schofield person is, but it's another social media star, I guess.
Those were the tweets that she sent.
Completely and totally correct.
Like, she's right about that.
There's nothing even to debate there, really.
Trayvon Martin tried to beat George Zimmerman's head into the pavement.
A witness saw it.
A jury acquitted Zimmerman because they agree that he acted in self-defense.
And yes, if Trayvon Martin had been white, Barack Obama would not have given a weepy press conference about how Trayvon Martin could have been his son.
There would have been no national outrage.
Like, no one would have ever heard it.
We never would have heard the guy's name if he was white.
That's a fact.
But, you know, you know what's coming next.
Here is Brooke Scofield's apology video.
Watch.
Alright guys, I have had a lot to say about accountability lately, and how important it is, and how far it can go, and I feel like I'm not taking my own advice.
Obviously by now you guys have seen the tweets that are circulating around.
They, unfortunately, are not fake.
Those are real tweets, like real things that I said.
First of all, I want to acknowledge that I feel the same way about them that you do.
I think they're so disturbing, they're wrong, they're horrible, and they're disgusting.
Of course, I do appreciate the people who are coming to bat for me, like saying like, you know, It was so long ago and like she's grown and stuff but like it doesn't honestly it doesn't matter like it literally does not matter.
They are horrible.
I want to talk about particularly the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman situation.
I try not to be so emotional because I don't want it to seem like it's like a sympathy thing at all.
I also don't want to blame anybody else at all and so I'm trying like to be really careful about that.
I just want to explain like and give some context into like my mindset at the time because I have seen like
some comments today that are like well no she's racist like white nepo baby like a little like
spoiled brat like and that was not my situation and my parents were addicts so I was adopted by
my grandparents when I was like 10 and I grew up with them from that point on and as is true
for a lot of grandparents they're a little bit less progressive than a lot of us are now oh my gosh um
it just I can't watch that because it's nauseating
It's really, it's nauseating to me.
All the sympathy, of course, that I could have for you for being the target of cancel culture and the outrage mob, all the sympathy goes out the window when you apologize.
So you deserve it.
You deserve all the backlash and outrage.
At that point, once you cave to it, it's like, now I can't defend you anymore because you're not going to defend yourself.
And then she throws her own family under the bus as part of this.
The rest of the video goes on like that.
She attacks her grandfather for being a right-wing conservative man who listened to Fox News all the time.
Apparently, Fox News reported that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and even though that was clearly correct information, it was still bad for her grandfather to have Fox News on because Fox News is on the wrong team.
And these are the people who adopted her, and she blames them for this.
Just pathetic.
Again, this is what these kinds of mobs demand.
You have to demonstrate your fealty to the ideology over everything else.
Truth doesn't matter.
Your own family doesn't matter.
All that matters is that you grovel and submit.
There's a bunch of other videos from this woman.
She had a whole series of apology videos for some reason like just went on and on and on apologized for it
Like daily apologies. There's also another video from Schofield's podcast host a woman named Tana Mongeau
It's a podcast that's called cancelled which is fitting I guess and on the podcast
Probably Tana I'd say goes goes into some detail about how the tweets were horrific
horrific and on and on and on But apparently Schofield is being let back on the podcast now that she's apologized.
Now that she's affirmed the lie that George Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense, she can keep her job.
So now that she's affirmed, now that she's signaled that she's dumber now than she was 10 years ago, she's allowed back into the fold a little bit.
There's one last case I want to talk about involving the YouTube star, Mr. Beast.
And as I've discussed recently, Mr. Beast has a lot of problems right now.
His trans-identified co-host, Chris Tyson, was just accused of sending sexually explicit messages to a child.
And given that Mr. Beast offended that co-host for years, and given that a lot of other credible related allegations are coming out, there's no reason for anyone to ever allow their child to watch a Mr. Beast video ever again.
But what I'm talking about now is the reporting from CNN about a separate incident Quote, in a video reportedly filmed around 2017 that recirculated over the weekend, Mr. Beast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, 26, is seen responding to a viewer who commented about selling black people.
The most I would pay is probably $300, Donaldson says in response.
In the clips, Donaldson also repeats a homophobic slur from a commenter and instructs other viewers to stop using the n-word in their chat.
So these are comments that this guy made when he was 19.
He's joking around with his dumb commenters who are engaging in, you know, dumb, edgy humor.
In fact, he's not even really coming up with the edgy humor himself.
He's just repeating what his fans are saying.
And we're supposed to care about this seven years after the fact.
This humor is supposed to be scandalous, even though it's harmed precisely no one.
There's an obvious contrast here between this fake outrage and the Chris Tyson story.
With Mr. Beast's approval, Chris Tyson promoted his lifestyle to an audience of children.
He also allegedly had various inappropriate sexual communications with children.
There was no joke or humor in any of that.
That was the intent.
Did a lot of damage.
On the other hand, Mr. Beast joking around with his fans seven years ago didn't hurt anyone.
No one thought about any of it, you know, until now.
And that illustrates a broader point, which is that one of the roles of these outrage mobs is to gin up fake hysteria over things that don't matter so that people don't notice what's happening right in front of them.
But here's the truth.
We are a country where racism is so uncommon that outrage mobs now have to pretend to be offended by the tweets of 13-year-old children 10 years after the fact.
Makes a lot of so-called anti-racist experts furious when you point that out because it destroys their whole grift.
But this particular DEI-certified anti-race expert has no problem saying it.
And that's why all of the outrage mobs trying to cancel TikTok influencers for their ancient social media posts are themselves today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
We'll 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.
I'm gonna sort this out.
I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certifications.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
Listen more for you in this field.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
I'm going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument.
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently?
Yes.
This country is a piece of...
White.
Folks.
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.
