Ep. 1597 - South Africa Doubles Down On Their Anti-White Agenda And The Left Celebrates
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the meltdown over the White South African refugees has reached a fever pitch. This has been the ultimate mask-off moment. Also, officials in Minnesota are supposedly preparing for riots in case Derek Chauvin is pardoned. But is that really going to happen? And why are they actually making a big show of preparing for riots? We'll discuss. And environmentalists are always finding little ways to make everyone's lives worse. The Trump administration will be rolling back at least one of these policies.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1597
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we’re keeping it.
The hit podcast, Morning Wire, is now on Video! Watch Now and subscribe to their YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/42SxDJC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Everyday Dose - Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30-servings of Coffee+ or Bold+ and you’ll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts by going to https://everydaydose.com/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout. You’ll also get FREE gifts throughout the year!
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://gcu.edu today.
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the meltdown over the white South African refugees has reached a fever pitch.
This has really been the ultimate mask-off moment.
We'll talk about it.
Also, officials in Minnesota are supposedly preparing for riots in case Derek Chauvin is pardoned.
But is that really going to happen?
And why are they actually making a big show of preparing for riots?
We'll discuss.
And environmentalists are always finding little ways to make everybody's lives worse.
The Trump administration will be rolling back at least one of these policies.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The Matt Wall Show.
If you feel like you keep juggling expensive supplements that are just getting more unaffordable to keep up with, then everyday dose will be a lifesaver for you.
Everyday dose transforms your morning coffee into a powerhouse of vitamins, minerals.
And amino acids all in one affordable cup.
Just 30 seconds to prepare and you're getting your caffeine fix plus all the nutrients your body needs.
One delicious cup.
One simple solution.
Everyday Dose isn't just coffee, it's coffee plus benefits.
They've infused their 100% Arabica beans with lion's mane chaga collagen protein and brain-boosting nootropics for clean, sustained energy without the crash or jitters.
You can choose between their mild coffee plus, which is light, smooth, and gentle on sensitive stomachs, or...
Coffee Plus Bold, which is a rich, full-body medium roast with an extra energy kick, both deliver the same functional benefits and undergo rigorous third-party testing to ensure that you're getting the best quality.
Your brain and body will thank you.
I've actually tried this, and I have to tell you that I take my coffee very seriously.
I'm very skeptical of any effort to change my coffee routine.
I tried it, and I can legitimately say that I like it a lot.
Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee Plus or Bold Plus.
You'll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts, including a rechargeable fronther and gunmetal serving spoon by going to everydaydose.com slash Walsh or entering Walsh at checkout.
You'll also get free gifts throughout the year.
That's everydaydose.com slash Walsh for 45% off your first order.
Try to imagine that you run South Africa.
You're in charge of the African National Congress, not exactly an enviable position.
Your country has the highest unemployment rate in the entire world since the end of apartheid, which was supposedly the greatest evil to ever befall mankind.
A lot of bad things have been happening.
The power grid has collapsed along with the export markets and any semblance of public safety.
Headlines like this one are common.
As you can see, it reads, Grandmother 71 dies of shock after she was forced to watch her three granddaughters being raped at gunpoint at her home in South Africa.
And there's plenty more where that came from because you have turned your country into the living embodiment of DEI to disastrous results.
And then, to your heart, the President of the United States decides to shine an international spotlight on your incompetence.
He makes it impossible to hide what's going on in South Africa.
Specifically, the President allows white citizens of South Africa to flee to the U.S. So they can escape all the anti-white violence and race-based land seizures that you've implemented in your failing country.
And unsurprisingly, a lot of white people take the United States up on the offer.
They decide that it's better to uproot their entire families and fly halfway across the world than to spend another second under your rule in South Africa.
Now, if you have an ounce of shame, that would have to be extremely monumentally embarrassing.
I mean, there are politicians in Japan who would quit, quite literally commit like ritualistic suicide under those circumstances.
The job of any government And once the most productive members of society start leaving at great personal cost to themselves, then you have failed as a leader and as a government.
You are illegitimate.
And you have no one else to blame.
And you should resign in shame at the absolute minimum.
But the African National Congress has decided on the opposite course of action.
Rather than engage in any kind of introspection, they decided to attack the white refugees who have just fled to America.
They're not showing any interest in keeping any of the remaining Afrikaners from fleeing, even though they're responsible for maintaining the vast majority of usable farmland in the country.
They're also not interested in contesting the notion that white people are going to be persecuted in their country.
Instead, the African National Congress released this statement the other day.
As you can see, the statement reads, quote, They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality, and accountability for historic privilege.
The statement goes on to describe the refugees as cowardly and says that they are offended by a democratic society working to redress past injustices.
Then there's this concluding line, which really sells the message.
Quote, Well, this is one of those things that's less true for having been said, as the saying goes.
If you're running a highly functional, stable country, then you're not going to end your press release out of nowhere by declaring that you're not a broken or failing state.
No state that isn't a failing state has ever had to clarify in a statement that they aren't a failing state.
And it's like walking up to your wife unprompted and announcing that you're not having an affair.
But none of these people are especially bright, so they're not aware of the implications of what they're saying, no matter how obvious those implications might be.
It also explains why, in effect, their message is essentially an explicit threat to every white person in South Africa.
And they're also attempting to coax the refugees back with a promise of giving them the opportunity to be held accountable for historical injustices.
They're basically saying, hey guys, can you come back so we can persecute you?
This isn't fair.
We were going to persecute you and then you left.
That's not fair.
Now, with this statement, they are validating everything the Trump administration says about the country.
No person of any race should be subjected to land seizures or violence as part of accountability for historic privilege, whatever the heck that means.
But that's what the government of South Africa is now demanding by their own admission.
And it's what the political left is demanding in this country, too.
In the days since the first 59 white refugees arrived from South Africa, Political commentators on the left have been melting down to a degree that's truly hard to comprehend, even given everything we already know about these people.
What we're seeing is primal rage and hysteria.
I mean, it's a level of anti-white race hatred that needs to be exposed, or else very soon, you know, we're going to start to look a lot like South Africa.
So let's start with Don Lemon, who no longer has the need to temper his passion for white genocide now that he's not on cable news.
Not that cable news personalities are tempering it very much, as we'll see later on.
But anyway, here's Don Lemon.
This South African farmer, which is the most blatantly obvious racist ever.
It is blatantly obvious the way that we treat white South Africans, who, by the way, for the most part, and I am generalizing here, some of the wealthiest people are well-to-do people in the country.
To speak their language, they're not just taking land away from white South African farmers.
White South Africans, about 9% of the population owned 87% of the fertile land.
Okay?
Today, black South Africans make up more than 90% of the population and they only hold about 4% of all privately owned land.
So what they're trying to do is say, hey, we need to...
Fix an historical injustice and figure out if you're not using that land to farm, then we need to have some of that land.
Not taking all of your entire farm.
That's not what's happening.
And we need to what?
There needs to be equity.
And now people are crying because the playing field is being leveled.
And so therefore it is now discrimination.
Okay, so notice what is being said here.
Notice he says that white people own most of the fertile land in South Africa.
The word fertile is doing a lot of work there, because if you know anything about farmland, even if you don't know anything about it, you should still know that it's possible to ruin it.
I mean, it's possible to do a very bad job of maintaining it, and it's not as though you could just give a farm to a random person off the street and rest assured that it's going to be fertile in 10 years.
And we know that for a few reasons.
First of all, it's common sense.
Second, Zimbabwe already tried this.
Several decades ago, they made the decision to seize farms from whites, give them to black citizens.
After all, what could go wrong?
Well, you know, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa, supposedly.
Well, as it turns out, a lot can go wrong.
Like, a whole lot.
And before long, Zimbabwe needed to import food because they couldn't make their own.
And eventually the government gave up on the idea.
They gave the farmland back to the white people.
This is a Bloomberg News article from a few years ago.
Quote, Zimbabwe gives land back to white farmers after wrecking economy.
Two decades after President Robert Mugabe wrecked Zimbabwe's economy by urging black subsistence farmers to violently force white commercial farmers and their workers off the land, his successor has thrown in the towel.
The seizures that began in 2000 were ratified by the government, which said they were needed to address colonial imbalances.
A vibrant agricultural industry that exported tobacco and roses and grew most of the food the nation needed collapsed.
Periodic food shortages and Okay, so in other words, it turns out that when you use the government to redistribute fertile farmland to correct some alleged injustice, Is famine.
Okay, that's what equity means in practice.
It's what always happens when you take land from people who are managing it properly and redistribute it on the basis of race.
Competence matters, especially when you're talking about a country's food supply.
And make no mistake, the reason those white people control the farmland in South Africa is because, historically, they're competent.
They bought it.
They maintained it for generations.
Nobody handed it to them or maintained it for them.
The fact that it's still fertile, again, you can ruin farmland.
It's still fertile, even by Don Lemon's own testimony.
It's still fertile after generations.
What does that mean?
It means that they are properly managing the land.
And in many cases, they were there long before black South Africans arrived and demanded their property.
Now, in this debate, we are well past the point where the left can scream apartheid and just get whatever they want.
Post-apartheid South Africa is simply too great of a disaster by every available metric.
And by the way, apartheid was nothing like what's currently being enacted in South Africa.
As we discussed the other day, there were far fewer race-based laws under apartheid than there are right now in South Africa.
And the race-based laws under apartheid, by and large, were directed at enforcing racial separation.
Not large-scale farm seizures by the government without any limiting principle whatsoever.
Activists on the left know they have the losing argument in this debate, which is why they're now resorting to some of the most pathetic tactics imaginable.
So the New Republic, for instance, just ran a story in which they dug up the old tweets of one of these white refugees.
And we'll get to the bombshell, and let's see if you notice the big problem with this line of attack.
Maybe you'll pick up on it.
So the headline is, one of Trump's Afrikaner refugees is quite the anti-Semite.
So yeah, they went rooting through his tweets to smear him, all because he's white and he's fleeing persecution in South Africa.
He's allegedly an anti-Semite, so he needs to go back.
Now, of course, if this is the new standard for refugees, then I have very bad news about 90% or more of the refugees that were admitted under the Biden administration.
Muslims from the Middle East and Africa are not exactly big fans of Jewish people, generally speaking.
Even if a lot of them don't have Twitter, so you can't go look at it.
It doesn't take long if you want to know how they feel on that subject.
It wouldn't take much digging to find out.
But the New Republic probably doesn't seem to realize how this would go, but it's pretty obvious.
Meanwhile, other luminaries on the left are reduced to making explicit threats against these refugees.
And here's one viral example.
Watch.
Good morning.
This is for the South Africans who are going to be entering the United States.
This is just a public service announcement.
I just wanted to make you aware that the black people who were students during apartheid, we're grandmas and grandpas now.
And we have the air of Gen Z. One more thing.
I also want to let you know that our president, he has secret service and you will not.
I also want to tell you that black people over here are empowered.
These are just public service announcements.
When you get here, sit your ass down and don't touch nothing.
Because you don't have secret service.
Okay.
Now have the day you deserve.
Now this is not some random person, by the way.
She has more than 100,000 followers on TikTok for some ungodly reason.
And she's openly threatening these white refugees with murder solely on the basis of their skin color.
Which, by the way, is something you just never see.
For all the talk about the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the right, there's nobody on the right going out and just threatening to kill immigrants who are coming here.
We're saying round them up, deport them if they shouldn't be here, enforce our immigration, enforce our laws.
There's nobody saying that.
Nothing like this is happening.
All it takes is for a few white people to be admitted.
And this is the kind of anti-refugee, anti-immigrant rhetoric we get from the left.
It's like, immediately, all pretense is dropped, and they're saying, yeah, we're going to go out and kill you.
There's not even any attempt to sugarcoat it.
She thinks that white people should die.
And there are a lot of videos like this on TikTok at the moment.
Most of them adopt the same gleeful tone.
We saw this with Carmela Anthony.
We saw it with Rodney Hinton.
And now we're seeing it here.
And if you listen really carefully, by the way, The most telling part of the video happens around the 31-second mark.
Maybe go back and listen to it again.
Turn the volume up.
That's the moment where you can hear a very faint smoke alarm chirp in the background while this woman is threatening to murder white people.
The whole thing is just very on the nose.
Actually, there is one exception here.
Over at CNN, they've managed to fix the smoke detectors, at least, but they definitely have not gotten rid of the genocidal, anti-white commentators.
This, again, is on CNN.
This is not on TikTok.
And listen to what this woman says.
The people who are native to that land deserve their rightful land back.
That is not what the Afrikaners actually want to have happen, which are the white Africans, and so who are not originally from Africa, who colonized South Africa also.
And so that is what they are saying is discrimination.
Now, if the Constitution in South Africa is discriminatory, they have their checks and balances in that land, just like we do.
And that is for them to...
So if the Afrikaners don't actually like the land, they can leave that country.
They are.
They're leaving to come here.
No.
These refugees are coming here.
They can actually leave and go to where their native land is, which is probably Are you against them coming here?
Holland's problem.
Holland?
Now, the obvious problem here is that despite being given a national television platform, this woman clearly has no idea what she's talking about.
She thinks the Afrikaners came from Germany.
She's a complete imbecile like pretty much everyone else on CNN.
All she's interested in doing is demonizing white people, and She's going to do that one way or another every time she gets on television.
But there's actually a bigger problem with this woman's response.
Let's pretend for a second that the Afrikaners actually did come from Germany.
She's implying that in that scenario, the white people could go back there and she'd be fine with that.
But of course, she wouldn't be fine with that.
The left would not be fine with that.
Take a look at what the left has done to Germany in the last couple of decades.
If you don't believe that, I mean, it's unrecognizable.
And any white person who complains is immediately labeled far-right.
They're condemned as white supremacists.
The National Security Service has opened counter-terrorist investigations in every single one of them.
And the same is true, of course, in this country.
So, this is the funny thing about who is considered native or not.
Who is considered an invader or not.
CNN commentators have no problem announcing that white people...
Whose ancestors have been in the country for 20 generations should go back home if they're in South Africa.
But try telling the Somalis of Minnesota to go back home.
You'll be immediately labeled a far-right bigot.
Even though the Somalis have been here for at most a couple of decades.
Some have been here for a couple of hours.
But we're told that the Somalis have every right to be here.
That we're told the Somalis, the moment they step foot here, they are just as American as anyone else.
The moment the Somali steps foot in this country, they're just as American as you, even if your family's been here for 400 years.
And yet the white South Africans are not South African even after 400 years.
And Americans, who can trace their lineage back several centuries, they just have to shut up and take it in this country.
No matter where they are, maybe you've noticed, white people, no matter where they are, are always the colonizers.
And have no legitimate claim to whatever land they're on.
In other words, under the left's framework, white people are the only demographic on the planet that can never be considered truly at home or native to any country anywhere.
You know, we'll be told that a white person's true home is Western Europe, and yet if any white person in the UK claimed that it was a white country, they'd be condemned.
They say to us in America that this isn't our land, right?
It's stolen.
So where is our land?
They will not follow that to its conclusion and say that, well, Europe is the white man's land.
They're not going to say that.
So where is it?
The message is that there is literally no place on earth that white people can claim is a legitimate homeland.
A white man is native to nowhere.
He is indigenous to nowhere.
I mean, that's strange, isn't it?
How does that work?
Like, have you noticed that there's no country on the planet with white, indigenous people?
How is that possible?
Where did the white people come from?
Did they fall out of the sky like rain?
Did they magically spawn out of thin air?
If a white person could trace his roots back to the 17th century in this country, does that make him a Native American?
I mean, at what point can the white person say, yeah, I am native to this country?
How many centuries does he need to be, does his family need to be in a country to be native to it?
How many generations?
Ten, is that enough?
No, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, is that enough?
At that point, can we say we're native to this country?
And if the answer is, well, there's no amount of time, if the answer is that, well, it could be a thousand years from now, And a white person who's been here for more than a thousand years, their family's been here for a thousand years, still is not native to this country in America.
If that's the answer, then again, where is his native homeland?
And if he goes there, can he claim the title of native or indigenous?
Can he say that the non-natives are invading or stealing?
Well, the left has no answer to any of those questions.
And the reason is that the terms native and colonizer and invader and indigenous are all just tools of manipulation.
They don't mean anything.
And of course, white people get this treatment even though they actually bring innovation, advancement, and infrastructure everywhere they go.
And then when they're kicked out, you know...
What happens?
I mean, very often that infrastructure is not maintained.
Look at what happened after Portugal gave back Mozambique or Angola.
Look at South Africa.
Look at Zimbabwe.
Total disrepair has followed when the alleged colonizers are kicked out.
And that's just a historical fact.
And why might that be?
Well, that's a question you're definitely not supposed to ask, but...
Recently, I saw someone who's an African who took a crack at addressing this point.
Interesting.
Let's watch.
What is the one word in Igbo for maintenance?
Maintenance?
There's no direct English word for that.
It doesn't translate directly to the English.
That's correct.
How about you?
It doesn't translate.
That's correct.
But it translates to, like, take care of.
No, that is not maintenance.
What is the one word for repair in Igbo?
Exactly!
What is the one word for repairing?
You see, I'm driving you to somewhere.
What is the one word for democracy in Igbo language?
You don't.
How about you?
You don't.
You're trying to practice something that is not in the concept of the language.
There is no African country, and I've done it through Kenya, through I've done it all, that has an equivalent of the word maintenance.
Well, in order to maintain something, you have to have it first.
Correct.
No, if I leave it for you, you can maintain it.
The British left a lot of things in this country when they left.
They established the hospitals, they established the fire stations, the post offices, the railway lines, the roads they built before they left.
You are not able to maintain it because you don't have that concept.
Because your environment, the tropical environment of Africa, the way you build your houses, the material you use, you don't require maintenance.
Every country that is called industrialized countries, today one of the things you know about them is maintenance of what they have.
That's why we have buildings here that are about 250 years old, 300 years old in this country.
There are buildings in other countries of Europe that are 700 years ago.
The Notre Dame that burned in France was a 13th century building.
Do you know what kept it that long until today?
Maintenance is a culture.
Now, this is one of those conversations that if you were leading South Africa at the moment, you'd probably want to take pretty seriously.
Maybe take a step back and wonder if 30 years of black supremacy and white hatred is really an optimal substitute for maintaining the roads and the farms and the power grid.
Maybe you'd recognize that if you don't even value the concept of maintenance, then inevitably you're going to have a collapse.
That's what inevitably will happen.
It's pretty clear in South Africa that they don't value maintenance at all, which is why they are taking the people who've maintained fertile farmland that everyone recognizes as fertile and expelling them from it without any real plan of like, how are we going to make food now?
So this is what happens if you demonize a handful of productive people who are sticking around.
But of course, no one in South Africa is asking these questions at the moment.
Instead, they're demonizing.
The white people who are already out the door.
And that means that very soon, those white people will have a lot of company.
South Africa is about to lose the few farmers it has left.
No country in human history has ever survived something like that.
And South Africa, the ultimate embodiment of DEI, will be no different.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, and it believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.
Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuits Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private, Christian, affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
Rumors started circulating pretty widely on social media yesterday that Minnesota is preparing for riots in case there is a pardon of Derek Chauvin.
Here's the local ABC affiliate with the report.
This is what Minneapolis looked like after former MPD officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd.
And it's something state and city leaders do not want to see happen again.
I spoke with six total sources today.
They tell me Governor Tim Walz, the Minnesota National Guard, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Mayor Jacob Fry, and Hennepin County Sheriff DeWanna Witt have all been briefed on a potential Chauvin pardon and the possible end to the federal consent decree that called for extensive reform at MPD.
And tonight, law enforcement is now preparing for possible civil unrest if those two things happen.
Mayor Frey is not talking about those plans, but his Commissioner of Community Safety, Todd Barnett, in a statement says, We've heard the same rumors as everyone else, but the bottom line is that Derek Chauvin would remain behind bars serving his state sentence even if his federal charges are pardoned.
To be clear, we have no credible intelligence about any pardon or planned disruptions here in Minneapolis.
So this is kind of a strange story.
I mean, pardoning Chauvin isn't strange.
I think that should happen.
But it doesn't appear there's any actual indication that a pardon is coming.
And, I mean, maybe there is, but there's no...
And yet, the media is talking about it.
All these Democrat officials in Minnesota are preparing for it very kind of publicly.
Which leads me to believe this is all a charade by the Democrats.
Some kind of charade to try to whip up the BLM mob.
This is them saying, oh gee, you know, I hope there aren't more riots in the summer.
That would be terrible.
That would be really bad.
Oh man, I hope that the first summer after Donald Trump is elected that we don't have mass riots again.
That would be...
Right, guys?
That would be, we wouldn't want that.
We're really getting prepared for that.
So it just doesn't, it doesn't make sense that they have, they say they have no intelligence about a pardon coming, and yet they're preparing for riots anyway, in case of an event that they have no reason to believe will happen.
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Alternatively, they do have intelligence of a pardon coming, and this is their way of signaling to the people who organize and fund these riots.
That they should start getting ready.
You know, rev up your engines and get ready.
Because these riots are not organic, obviously.
Riots in response to a federal pardon would definitely not spring up organically because the pardon wouldn't even free Derek Chauvin from jail.
There's no reason why riots would break out in response to that, except in a coordinated, non-organic way.
Now, all that said, there should definitely be a pardon.
There should be a...
Pardon?
Because it's the right thing to do.
Leaving aside all the strategy, the political strategy, the legal strategy, it's just the right thing to do.
Chauvin was railroaded.
He's an innocent man.
And Trump should do whatever is in his power to rectify however much of the situation he can.
Now, he can't free Chauvin from prison at this point, unfortunately.
I have seen people on X coming up with elaborate ways that maybe he could free him.
I saw someone suggest, well, Can you send Chauvin to an El Salvador prison and then have Bukele free him so he can live out his days in El Salvador?
I think it's very unlikely that something like that will happen.
So probably Trump cannot free Chauvin from prison at this point, unfortunately.
But he can pardon him from some of the charges at least, and he should.
Why should he do it?
Well, because he's innocent.
And those charges are bogus.
And so you should get rid of whatever...
You should get rid of all the bogus charges that you can.
And there's also...
I think maybe people are underestimating this factor.
There's also the bully pulpit effect.
A pardon would be Trump using the bully pulpit of the presidency to both call attention to Chauvin's plight.
And also give permission to normal people to speak up for Chauvin and to take his side.
And when I say permission, I don't mean literal permission.
Nobody needs actual permission from Trump to say that Chauvin is innocent.
I mean permission in the sense of giving cover.
This is how it always goes.
A lot of people know that what happened to Chauvin is wrong.
But they're afraid to say it.
They're afraid to speak up.
And in the first couple of years of all this, speaking up in defense of Derek Chauvin was the ultimate taboo because George Floyd was a martyr and a saint and had been canonized.
And now that's loosened up a little bit.
People are a little bit bolder, but I think most people, most normal people still won't say that publicly.
If the President of the United States is saying it, though, if the President of the United States comes out and says, This guy was railroaded.
This was a miscarriage of justice.
He should be pardoned.
If he says it, then it's not that everyone on the right is going to just parrot whatever he says because they can't think for themselves.
It's more that that's cover.
That gives people cover.
A lot of people already think that.
The president says it, and now it gives people a cover where they feel like they can say it too.
Because it's not this kind of scary, edgy thing anymore.
When the president is saying it.
And that would be a significant benefit, I think, in giving this pardon to Derek Chauvin.
Another point, I saw somebody on X make this point, and this is not my point.
I'm stealing it shamelessly.
I think it was the account Fisher King on X. And he made the point that the Menendez brothers shot both of their parents in the face with a shotgun.
And killed them.
And as far as I, I've followed the story very closely, but I have not followed it, I'm saying.
But as far as I know, they at one point had to go and reload the shotgun to finish the job on their mom.
Because this was like a, just a, this is first degree murder.
I mean, this is a planned out murder, very deliberate.
Reloading the shotgun, finishing the job.
I mean, this is like very methodical, plotted, sadistic murder.
And like I said, I haven't followed the case very closely, but I know that their original sentence of life without parole was converted to a lighter sentence recently, which would enable a judge to parole them.
And they're in California, I think.
Which would mean that these two guys who executed their own parents could walk free in society.
And there are other aspects of the case.
They're definitely guilty of executing their parents.
Nobody disputes that.
They don't dispute that.
Their claim, I guess, is that the parents were abusive.
As far as I'm aware, that has never been proven.
What we do know is that they brutally executed two people.
And now, as Fisher King points out, basically because of women who are obsessed with true crime podcasts, they might get to walk free.
Even as Derek Chauvin, an actually innocent man, rots behind bars.
Who would you rather live next to?
Two psychopaths who shot their parents in the face?
Or Derek Chauvin?
Who would you be more worried might break into your house in the middle of the night and butcher you while you're sleeping?
Would anyone be concerned that Derek Chauvin...
If Derek Chauvin was living next to you, would you be worried at all?
Would you have any concern that Derek Chauvin is a threat to you?
Of course not.
Sadistic murderers who killed their own parents?
Yeah, I don't want to be anywhere around those people.
Who would want to be around them?
But this is how it usually goes.
You look at these organizations like the Innocence Project or whatever and often taking up the cases of people who very often clearly are not actually innocent or it's not clear at all that they are innocent working to free the kinds of people into society who none of us would ever want to be around.
And maybe there were some procedural things that went wrong in the trial.
Maybe this or that happened.
But it's like, yeah, they're still definitely guilty, though.
And yet, we work to set those kinds of people free.
Nobody would want to be around them.
You wouldn't want to be alone or an elevator with any of these kinds of people.
And then you have people like Derek Chauvin, who you would feel perfectly safe with him in your community.
And he's still rotting behind bars.
So maybe this is what we need.
Maybe there needs to be...
I mean, I'm sure there already have been plenty of podcasts and stuff about...
Of course there have been about Derek Chauvin, but we need a...
I don't know.
We need a true crime podcast specifically targeting women, like middle-aged women, about Derek Chauvin.
And that's what tips it over the edge.
Once the women start listening to a true crime podcast about a trial, and they get into it, then those are the people who end up getting set free.
So...
I don't know.
What do you got to do?
What do you got to do to get...
What's the secret sauce here?
There are certain murder trials that women become very obsessed with, and then others that they have no interest in at all.
And what exactly is the...
I mean, there's the obvious thing.
Is it like, well, if they think that the accused is attractive, I mean, that might be part of it.
I don't think that's the entire thing, though.
There's something else deeply psychological going on that I haven't quite figured out, but that will be Chauvin's salvation, I think, is if the soccer moms of America can be mobilized to take up his cause because they...
I saw an HBO documentary or a true crime podcast about it.
All right.
I've been meaning to play this clip.
This gets a little bit graphic, so if you have kids around, you can skip this segment.
This is another clip from that YouTube series, Surrounded.
And in this one, the guy being surrounded is, I guess, some kind of LGBT activist.
And here he is trying to defend the claim that so-called anti-LGBT policies are anti-Christian.
So the specific claim that he's making is that Christianity embraces homosexuality.
He's attempting to make a religious argument, an allegedly Christian argument, for the homosexual lifestyle.
And here is Sarah Stock, who we've seen before on this show, making the counter-argument.
Let's watch a little bit of that.
So I'm assuming from everything you're telling me that you think that God is okay with you practicing sodomy with other men.
I am saying that God always acts in accordance with love, and the sodomy that was written about in the Bible has nothing to do with loving queer and trans relationships because there was no frame of reference for the phrases who created it.
Man is imperfect.
God's word is perfect.
God would support queer and trans existence.
Do you want to talk about why it's also anti-American?
You don't think that sodomy existed 2,000 years ago?
I do think it existed 2,000 years ago.
And the way that it was written about in the Bible was about hateful, unconsensual, pedophilic, ritualistic acts of sodomy.
There have been healthy queer and trans relationships all throughout the history, and they were not included in the Bible the same way women's rights were not included in the Bible.
God did not intend us to treat that like a law that we never move on from.
He entreated us to use it like a way to learn, love, and practice it better.
It is not an instruction manual.
It is one tool that we can use to live our lives.
But to clarify, so you do think that God is...
Is it okay with you having sex with other men?
Yes.
Okay.
So I think that your definition of love is basically what feels good for you and also being nice to other people.
I think love is more complicated than that.
For example, you can have a sexual relationship with someone that you might not love, whereas love is a deeper emotion of care.
Okay, but basically it's just like this fluffy feeling of like, oh, I like you, I'm treating you well, whatever.
I think that love is willing the good of another person.
Love is a hard action.
you can have consensual sex with someone and that's not loving them because participating in homosexual acts is inherently not loving because it's damaging.
It violates natural law.
They're not inherently damaging.
They're not inherently damaging.
Okay, so the old animals do it so we can do it too, canard, which I always find hilarious because that's the worst.
Animals do a lot of stuff that we shouldn't do.
And it's funny how often this comes up in these arguments.
And the gay rights people, they think this is a great argument.
They love this argument.
You have any argument with a gay rights activist, and within two minutes, I think we got in under two minutes on that one, within two minutes, they're going to bring up the animal kingdom.
Did you know there's homosexuality in the animal kingdom?
Okay, so because animals do it, that in and of itself shows that it's okay to do it.
Animals eat their own young.
Okay, animals cannibalize each other.
Black widow spider mates with the male and then eats the male.
Okay, should we be doing that?
I mean, yeah, a lot of feminists might like that plan, but there's a species of wasp that lays its eggs inside of a caterpillar.
And then when the eggs hatch, the little baby wasps eat the caterpillar alive from the inside.
Should we, I don't know, should we somehow find a way to adopt that strategy?
That's natural in the animal kingdom.
So, the point is that the animal kingdom is full of just savagery and brutality.
The animal kingdom is just a, and I love nature documentaries as much as the next guy, but...
It is a brutal place.
And so I don't know that I'd be taking my cues from that.
Yeah, you know, like a human family, a human nuclear family, is distinct among life forms on the planet.
It is, in a sense, unnatural.
In a sense.
And I say unnatural only in the sense that in the way that it's often used.
Like when people say, oh, this is natural, what they mean is like it's base.
It's like a base kind of bestial instinct.
And that's what is meant by natural a lot of the time.
The nuclear family monogamy.
These are unnatural, not in the sense of being lower than nature, but in transcending our animal nature.
It is unnatural in a transcendent sense.
It is unnatural in that it is higher, it is better, it is bigger than what you find in nature.
Because, yes, in the animal kingdom, you're not going to find anything like...
Now, you might find it's rare, but there are some species where they have...
Where they pair up for life.
Mating for life is a thing.
That's very rare.
And what you're not going to find is mating for life and then raising the baby animal for years and years and years.
And they all live together for years and years and years and years.
That you just don't find in the...
In the animal kingdom, because we're not modeling our society.
We're not modeling human society off of what alligators do.
We're not looking at alligators.
We're not looking at monkeys.
We're not looking at what a tree squirrel does and saying, let's model our society by that.
We are modeling our society.
Our society is grounded in something that transcends, that is transcendent.
Beyond nature.
So that's all ridiculous.
And then we get to the kind of the biblical, such as it is, the biblical argument, which is that Christianity somehow condones the homosexual lifestyle.
And this is what they do.
If you're wondering how anyone could possibly be a pro-gay, pro-LGBT Christian, this is how they square that circle.
I mean, there's no disputing what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Obviously, there are many passages in the Old Testament.
And there are multiple passages in the New Testament.
Like the first chapter of Romans, which describes the homosexual act as shameful and dishonorable and debased.
That's what the Bible says.
Right?
And he's bringing up the Bible.
So, you can't say, oh, who cares what the Bible says?
That's the argument.
That's the argument he's making.
So he cares about what the Bible says, allegedly, so let's talk about what it says.
So the first chapter of Romans says that homosexual act is shameful, dishonorable, and debased.
It's hard to be more explicit than that.
And perhaps even more clear, even more explicit, is the fact that the Bible comes right out of the gate in Genesis describing what a man is supposed to do, and it's this, to remind you.
A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Again, that's not really a natural setup.
That is a supernatural setup, I think, is the best way to frame it.
It's not natural.
It's supernatural.
That is a supernatural.
The two become one flesh.
That doesn't happen in the animal kingdom.
So anyway, but it's right there.
So what are you going to do about this if you're an LGBT activist?
Well, one thing you could do is just say, well, Christianity is false, it's an ignorant, ancient, you know, bigoted religion, and I reject it totally.
You could say that.
I think that's wrong.
I think that's tragically terribly wrong, but that's one way of dealing with the very clear biblical edicts, both condemning the homosexual lifestyle and prescribing monogamous heterosexual marriage as the correct and healthy form.
And plenty of LGBT activists will just say that.
They'll say, well, I don't care what the Bible says.
I'm not, you know, the Bible's false.
But then you've got guys like this who want to cling to the Christian label.
And these guys are much, much greater threats because they're trying to subvert Christianity from the inside.
The guys on the outside, basically the Reddit atheists talking about how we believe in a magical sky daddy or whatever they say, they're not much of a threat.
Nobody takes them seriously.
The greater threat is this.
These people who claim to be Christian while holding to a moral framework that is completely anti-Christian.
And how do they do it?
Well, they do it by just simply declaring that the words in the Bible mean something other than what the words actually mean.
So he just states as fact that anytime homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, which it is frequently, it's really condemning rape and pedophilia.
Which is an interesting argument, right?
So you're saying that the Bible uses homosexuality as a catch-all term for rape and pedophilia?
I'm not sure that really helps your case.
But this is what they do.
The LGBT activists who pretend to be Christian, this is what they do.
Oh, no, no.
No, it's totally fine because whenever the Bible talks about gay people or homosexuality, what they really just mean, that's just a word that means sexual violence.
Oh, really?
Well...
Have you thought about that?
That's interesting, isn't it?
And anyway, it's not true.
Homosexuality in the Bible meant back then what it means now.
Men having relations with other men.
In fact, even that is explained in Romans, as I mentioned.
St. Paul says that there are men having relations with men, and this is debased and wrong.
It can't get more clear than that.
So it's not even just saying, oh, homosexuality is...
And then you can go, well, what did he mean by homosexuality?
I wonder what that means.
No, he actually says, no, there are men who are having relations with men.
That is wrong.
Don't do that.
It's right there.
I mean, it's plain text.
But what we get from guys like this is they say, well, yeah, well, Paul says that, but what he really meant to say, I'll tell you what he really meant to say.
And if you ask them, well, what are you basing that on?
What do you mean what he really meant to say?
Well, these guys, they treat the Bible like it's some sort of obscure hieroglyphic that they have to translate.
And not translate like we translate a foreign language in English.
Obviously, all of our Bibles, if we speak English, are translated that way.
But no, they translate it like, you know, if you go to some...
A con artist psychic, and you tell her about your dreams, and she starts interpreting your dreams for you, you know, and says, oh, a tiger appeared in your dream, and so that means that you're worried that you're going to lose your job or whatever.
That's how they treat it.
And now, there are parts of the Bible that are dreamlike, you know, that are visions and dreams of the apocalyptic literature, revelation, and so on.
But, because the Bible, you know, the Bible is not one book.
We call the Bible a book, but it's not one book, as anyone who's read the Bible knows.
It's a collection of books, and all these different books are doing different things.
It's different styles of literature, it's different styles of writing, and they're trying to do different things.
It's not like one thing.
And so you have books, you have the Psalms, you have poetry, you have all these things.
But much of the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, is written to be very plain and very clear.
Because you have to look again at whatever part of the Bible you're reading, what was the author of this portion that I'm reading?
What was the author trying to do?
What was the point of this?
Well, the epistles of Paul, Are letters that he wrote to various churches.
And they're meant to be clear as day.
He's directly addressing and dealing with the issues that the communities were facing.
And often like deep moral theological issues.
Sometimes more practical day-to-day issues.
But that's all it was.
He was writing letters.
It wasn't meant to be.
It was meant to be clearly understood based on the language that was used.
To deal with these like.
Problems that they were experiencing in their communities.
But these LGBT activists and these leftists who are so-called Christians but not real Christians, these subversives in the church, they look at even stuff like that.
They look at the epistles.
They look at the plain words of the text, the plain words of Christ in the Gospels.
And they treat even that stuff like it's, well, I know this is the word that's used, but here's what, and they state it.
It's not even an argument, it's just an assertion.
You saw in that clip, very confidently, he says, well, yeah, but it meant this.
Really?
How do you know that?
Where'd you hear that?
Oh no, you heard it because another subversive, left-wing, LGBT, gay, So-called theologian or whatever told you.
That's why you know it.
You read it in a book that was written three years ago.
So they have no case, just to summarize.
As Doge continues to surgically cut the fat from decades of bloated government spending and corruption, Pure Talk, the cell phone company I use for business, is cutting the fat from the wireless industry.
That's right.
PureTalk says, I don't think so, to $100 a month cell phone plans.
That's just wasteful and irresponsible.
Instead, they're offering America's most dependable 5G network at America's most sensible prices.
Listen to this.
Unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data plus mobile hotspot for just $35 a month.
And the best part, right now you'll get a free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus.
And with PureTalk's U.S. customer service team, you can switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes.
You don't need Doge to cut the fat from your wireless bill.
You need Pure Talk.
In uncertain economic times, everyone can use a little extra savings in their day-to-day, and Pure Talk helps you do just that.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh, switch to puretalk at puretalk.com slash Walsh, and get a year of Daily Wire Plus for free with a qualifying plan.
Pure Talk, wireless by Americans for Americans.
If it feels like the country's on the knife's edge, well, you're right.
Daily Wire Plus is where the counterpunch is landing.
Unfiltered, ad-free shows, everyday investigations that shake up the system, films and docs that they don't want you to see.
This isn't just commentary.
It's a cultural offensive.
Be a part of it.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
On January 3rd, 2019, something unthinkable happened at Jeff Bezos' newsletter, which is formerly known as The Washington Post.
At the time, the paper was furiously obsessing over every detail of the Russiagate hoax, but amid all the chaos and the P-tape stuff, One man managed to write a worthwhile opinion piece for the Washington Post, and it was a bit like Monet somehow managing to create a decent painting, even though he was pretty much blind.
The piece I'm talking about was written by a guy named Sonny Bunch, and here was the headline, Environmentalists make good movie villains because they want to make your real life worse.
And the op-ed goes through a number of examples from Thanos, Thanos, Thanos, right?
In Avengers Affinity War, to King Orm in Aquaman, to Samuel L. Jackson's character in The Kingsman.
All movies that I have not seen.
And in all these cases, apparently, the villain is motivated by some strain of environmentalism.
The Aquaman villain guy was angry about trash being dumped in the water.
Apparently.
Now, admittedly, we're not talking about groundbreaking journalism, but by the Washington Post standards, this is profoundly insightful stuff.
And I was reminded of this article recently when I saw this headline from Axios the other day.
The article explains, quote, Trump administration is targeting climate technology that automatically turns a vehicle's engine off when it's stopped to save fuel.
Stop-start technology has become a common feature in new vehicles as a way to save a few bucks on gas and reduce emissions.
Advocates like it because it helps combat climate change, but critics find it irritating.
The article quotes EPA administrator Lee Zeldin as saying, quote, stop-start technology where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy.
EPA approved it and everyone hates it, so we're fixing it.
Currently, the EPA incentivizes automakers to implement stop-start technology by providing them with fuel economy credits.
As of 2023, more than 65% of vehicles are equipped with this system, so there's a good chance that unless you're driving an electric car or a hybrid, your car has some kind of start-stop functionality.
And if that's the case, you should disable it immediately if your car allows you to do so.
And in practice, if you don't turn it off or if you can't, The start-stop feature works by shutting down your engine when you come to a stop for any length of time, like at a red light.
And for those of us who can't turn this feature off, this is a source of, like, constant unnecessary annoyance.
Generally, it means that your air conditioning shuts off as well or doesn't work as well.
And it means you're going to accelerate more slowly from a stop.
And supposedly, this is all worth it because it cuts down on greenhouse emissions, and therefore it stops the weather from changing.
And as an added bonus, it'll potentially save you a couple of dollars when you fill up your tank, supposedly.
Now, in reality, of course, the start-stop feature, it turns out, does not change the weather or prevent hurricanes.
And we know that because reports indicate, anyway, that hurricanes still exist.
And it seems that the weather is still changing.
And additionally, to the extent that it's saving you a few dollars on fuel costs, it's dramatically increasing the wear and tear on your engine and your battery.
And replacing those components is a lot more expensive than spending a few extra dollars at the gas pump.
An account called Honest Mechanic Colorado broke down some of the issues involved in this system.
Watch.
Number one, oil pressure issues.
Think about this for a second.
Every time your engine starts up, there's a brief moment where oil pressure hasn't fully built up.
In a normal car, this happens maybe once or twice a day.
But with Start-Stop, we're talking dozens of times in a single commute.
That adds up.
Especially on turbo engines where that hot oil is crucial for cooling.
Number two, battery and starter problems.
Yes, these cars use special AGM batteries and heavy-duty starters, but guess what?
Those parts cost way more to replace.
I'm talking two times more than regular parts, and trust me, they don't last three times longer.
It's a worthwhile video because it goes through all the different ways that the geniuses in the federal bureaucracy, you know, decided that...
Technology should be made worse.
And so it's worthwhile in that sense.
But you don't really need it.
Common sense tells you that it can't be good for a car's engine to increase the number of times it's turned off and on by, like, what, 500% or more?
That's exactly what the start-stop system does.
It introduces a huge amount of completely unnecessary wear and tear on a system that was not designed for it.
There's also a safety problem here.
You know, the stop-start thing means that when you accelerate from a stop, there's a brief delay as the engine revs up again.
And the delay may only be one second, but if you're making a left turn onto a busy road, for example, a second could be the difference between getting T-boned or not.
And none of this is new.
The people who created the systems like this all the way back in the 1970s understood that it would cause problems for people's cars, but they did it anyway because the country was experiencing a massive fuel shortage at the time.
The Arabs implemented an oil embargo, which meant that gas stations saw long lines and fuel prices quadrupled.
So this was pitched as a way to conserve gas, not as a way to save the planet.
The saving the planet stuff is the new branding, and only people who have never driven a car in their lives and who don't understand how cars work would think that this is a good pitch.
And in that sense, the start-stop debacle is the perfect expression of environmental activism.
Because it promises to save the planet, when in reality, it serves only one purpose, which is to make your life a little bit worse.
Now granted, it makes your life worse in a comparatively small way.
But that's not the point.
The point is that it's totally unnecessary.
Your car engine is being destroyed more quickly, and you're sitting at a stoplight without AC for no reason.
The old system worked fine.
They changed it, increasing a daily annoyance in your life for no reason.
And this is what environmentalism has become.
Just finding, it's what it always has been.
Finding little ways, one after another, to take things that worked fine, And to make them worse than they were before, totally arbitrarily.
And the way they play the game is that you can never complain about any of it because all of it individually is so small that if you complain about it, then they can always go, what are you freaking out about?
It's this little thing.
Yeah, but why?
It's a little thing, but why did you do it?
There was no reason for it.
And we've seen a lot of efforts like this, from the attempts to ban gas stoves, to banning disposable plastic bags, to the crusade against plastic straws.
In the case of plastic straws that we previously discussed, a nine-year-old boy came up with data basically out of his own imagination, suggesting that these straws are somehow a major threat to civilization, and everyone just went with it.
The next thing you know, you're drinking out of a paper straw that dissolves inside the drink.
A small thing.
It's like the smallest thing, but why?
Why can't I just use the straws that actually work?
Those were fine.
But they made the change and introduced another little annoyance into your life for no reason.
It would be like if, imagine if one day the powers that be decided that every chair manufacturer in America has to make chairs that have one leg slightly shorter than the others.
And imagine that the reason for this policy is something totally fantastical and just made up.
Maybe they determined that sitting on a wobbly chair helps to ward off evil invisible fairies or something.
I don't know.
Now imagine that as a result, every chair you sit in is a little bit wobbly.
Now it's true that a wobbly chair is not a major crisis.
It's not a huge problem in the grand scheme.
If anyone asked you about the greatest struggles in your life and you said that wobbly chairs are at the top of the list, they would conclude rightly that you are the most pampered human who's ever existed.
But even so, it would be extremely annoying and it would make your life a little bit worse.
If every chair was wobbly, and the fact that this was being done on purpose for some totally superstitious, insane reason only makes the annoyance exponentially greater.
And that's what it is with these changes made to save the climate.
They are, very often, small annoyances being imposed on us for insane and superstitious reasons, and that just makes it worse.
And there are dozens of examples of this.
Another one is the effort to ban incandescent lights, for example, which doesn't get a lot of attention.
And here's what streets used to look like on the left before environmentalists decided that incandescent lights are going to destroy the planet in 12 years.
That was a lot more than 12 years ago.
Maybe that's why the planet wasn't destroyed, because they made the change.
And because environmentalists stepped in and saved all of civilization, now pretty much every city block in the country...
Looks like the photo on the right.
We're now treated to this kind of fluorescent-looking office space aesthetic everywhere we go.
City streets used to have kind of like a cool, moody feel to them.
Now everything looks like a hospital hallway.
And when you confront environmentalists about this, they will say that LED lights can actually display any kind of color and that it's absurd to want light that's less bright and the picture on the right looks better anyway.
But the left is much warmer, has more character, and a lot of people liked it.
So why do we have to change it everywhere?
Walk down the street on the left, and you might be inspired to become the next Edgar Allan Poe.
It's contemplative and distinct.
And walk down the street on the right, and you'll feel a little like Bill Lumberg wondering where the TPS reports are.
There's really no comparison.
Now, is the Trump administration going to fix streetlights next?
We can only hope.
But for now, they have done the nation a great service by moving to end the absurdity of these start-stop systems in automobiles.
And we should end all of the little revisions that environmentalists have made.
To our lives, against our will.
They are small things on their own, but together, they make our lives a little bit worse for no reason.
And also, as a matter of principle, environmentalists should just simply never get their way about anything ever.
And that is why the inventor of start-stop technology, along with every other environmentalist who wants to make our lives worse, are today canceled.
