The Matt Walsh Show - The View Is Leftist Propaganda | Proof For Your Liberal Friend

July 26, 2025 - The Matt Walsh Show

18:36

The View Is Leftist Propaganda | Proof For Your Liberal Friend

The View is full of leftist talking points and woke ideology. Send this podcast to your liberal friend as proof. - - - Today's Sponsor: PDS Debt- You’re 30 seconds away from being debt-free with PDS Debt. Get your free assessment and find the best option for you at https://PDSDebt.com/walsh - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Black history and other things banning books has been weaponized for political purposes to drive people to the polls based on outrage.
	Well, we've lost Joy Reed for now and all the content she brings, but fortunately, we still have the view.
	So we still have them.
	And here they are yesterday claiming that it is unchristian to criticize wokeness.
	Listen.
	I thought about the conversations you and I have had, Whoopi, so many times, about the co-opting of the word woke and the fact that the right somehow has made it a dirty word.
	To be woke is a word that came out of the African-American community, and it was about acknowledging social justice inequities, acknowledging people's suffering.
	It is not a bad thing to care about other people, to care about the sufferings of others, and to act upon it.
	And so Whoopi will often tell me, well, I've never been asleep.
	And that's how I feel.
	My parents, you know, they grew up in the civil rights movement.
	I grew up in the late 60s, 70s.
	I was always part of it.
	And so I've never been asleep.
	And so it angers me when people are like, this woke stuff, it's got to go.
	That's telling me that you don't care about my lived experience.
	You don't care about the oppression of the LGBTQ community.
	You don't care about the oppression of the disabled.
	You don't care about the oppression of immigrants.
	You don't care about your fellow neighbor.
	And that is ungodly.
	That is not Christian.
	Well, that's true.
	I don't care about the oppression of LGBT people or disabled people or minorities in this country because it's not happening.
	So it's hard to care about something that isn't actually occurring.
	You know, it's hard for me to care about a thing that is fictional unless it's in a movie or something.
	The word oppression has a meaning, and the meaning of oppression is that this is cruel or unjust treatment being inflicted on a person or a group by somebody in power.
	It's an unjust, cruel use of power against a person or group.
	That's what oppression is.
	So in what way are LGBT people or black people or even disabled people, since they got wrapped into this somehow, in what way are they being unjustly and cruelly treated and abused by people in power?
	And I know when you say that, people on the left are like, well, what do you mean?
	There are a million ways.
	It's the easiest question.
	Okay, well, go ahead.
	Easy question, right?
	Give me one example.
	Just one clear example.
	You can't do it.
	So that's our problem with wokeness.
	One of the problems anyway, as a woke person, you expect us to have sympathy for the entirely invented plight of people who are not only not being persecuted, but are often the recipients of unfairly advantageous treatment.
	And that's because in your woke mind, oppression and persecution are not words with any objective meaning.
	These are not things that actually happen.
	Or at least it doesn't matter if they happen or not.
	What matters is that you feel like they're happening.
	So to be woke is to believe that your lived experience, a phrase that only a woke person would ever be vapid enough to actually say out loud, your lived experience, quote unquote, which is to say your own personal perception, your feelings about your experiences, more than the experiences themselves, outweigh the facts on the ground.
	And that, by the way, so many people, I mean, I've always complained about this phrase lived experience because it appears to be redundant.
	I mean, of course, if you had an experience, of course you lived it.
	You can't have an unlived experience, can you?
	And it is redundant when taken literally, but you can't take anything that woke people say literally because, again, nothing has any objective literal meaning in their minds.
	So what they actually mean when they say lived experience, what they mean is felt experience.
	To live and to feel to them are the same thing.
	These are words that are interchangeable.
	And so what they're saying is felt experience.
	And there is a distinction between your felt experience and an actual experience.
	Like there's what's actually happening and then there's how you feel about what's happening.
	And so when they say, well, my lived experience is that I've been oppressed, what they mean is I feel like it.
	My experience is that I feel like I'm being oppressed.
	And then when a rational person responds and says, well, yeah, but you weren't actually oppressed.
	Like that didn't happen.
	Well, but I feel like it did.
	So I feel like it did.
	So then it basically did.
	That's what it means to be woke.
	And so, yes, our lack of compassion and concern and empathy is for that your feeling.
	Like we don't, if you feel a certain way and the way you feel totally contradicts the reality on the ground, then yeah, we don't care about your feeling.
	There's not, we can't do anything about that.
	That is your problem.
	That's like the very definition of a you thing.
	There's nothing we can do about that.
	And so that's how you, that's the difference.
	The system isn't broken.
	It's rigged.
	Banks get rich while you stay buried in debt.
	That's not an accident.
	That's the plan.
	PDS debt has helped hundreds of thousands of people flip the script on credit cards, personal loans, medical bills, and all those high interest traps.
	They know how to beat these companies at their own game.
	Your money, your future.
	It's time to take it back with PDS debt.
	PDS debt doesn't just crunch numbers and call it a day.
	They actually take the time to understand your specific situation and build a plan that works for you, not just some cookie coder approach.
	And here's the best part.
	They don't care what your credit score looks like, whether it's pristine or completely shot.
	They're focused on one thing, helping you save more money, crush your debt faster, and finally start keeping more of what you earn instead of handing it over to creditors every month.
	They've built a reputation by actually delivering results, which is why they have an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, thousands of five-star Google reviews, and a perfect score on TrustPilot.
	When you're drowning in debt, you need someone in your corner who knows how to fight back.
	And that's exactly what PDSDet does for their clients every single day.
	You're 30 seconds away from being debt-free.
	Get your free assessment and find the best option for you right now at pdsdebt.com slash walsh.
	That's pdsdebt.com slash walsh.
	PDSDebt.com slash walsh.
	The View invited singer.
	I don't have to play it, but I'm going to.
	The View invited singers Natasha Beddingfield and M-I-L-C-K.
	Is that MILC?
	Pronounce Milk?
	Anyway.
	So these two women to come perform an anti-gun song called Your Child, My Child.
	And I know you're thinking, musical performance at The View, it must already be terrible.
	It's an anti-gun song.
	It must be even worse.
	And I'm here to tell you that it's a lot worse than you even expect.
	Let's listen to some of this.
	I know that things will change when enough of us will say enough, enough, enough, oh yeah.
	Hey, enough, enough, enough, oh yeah.
	When enough of us show up, when enough of us cry out, when enough of us say no, when enough of us say enough, when more of us enough, they have a point.
	Enough.
	That's enough of that.
	But that is their point.
	I don't know if you picked up on it, but enough.
	They're saying enough, enough.
	Just enough, all right?
	The only thing we're missing from that song is more dramatic hand waving and head bobbing.
	I think there was not enough of that.
	We needed more of that, a little bit more.
	But what I love about this is that, first of all, it's yet more evidence that the left doesn't know how to get their point across through art anymore.
	And this is actually a great development for the culture, if not for our eardrums.
	Because everything now, it's a great development because the more effective they are at getting their ideas across, the worse it is.
	So the trade-off is that we have a lot of really bad, terrible art, but the only plus side is that they're not nearly as effective at conveying their ideas and getting people to accept them.
	Because everything now is too on the nose, too melodramatic, too overly political, overtly political, I should say.
	And they used to be much more subtle.
	They used to embed their messaging into art that on the surface seemed to have nothing to do with politics.
	And that was always the most effective approach, but they don't do that anymore.
	And I think there are a lot of reasons for that.
	They're far too ideological at this point.
	There's a real skill problem as well.
	They don't have the same level of talent anymore.
	And the second thing I like about this, this is a really great summation.
	It's a great representation of the gun control movement.
	Because this is actually all they have to say.
	Enough, enough.
	Someone do something.
	And they say that, you know, in the song, they say that when enough of us cry out, then the gun violence will stop.
	And I know you might think that, well, it's just a song.
	They don't mean that literally.
	But that is literally the anti-gun point of view.
	They think that we can reach a point where people get sick of gun violence and we pass some kind of magical law and it stops.
	But that, of course, is not the case.
	Gun violence committed by bad, violent people with ill intent will always be a problem.
	You can't make it go away.
	You can't make it disappear, especially not with laws.
	And the reason that we know that is because the world has always been a very violent place, and it was a very violent place, probably in many ways more violent, before guns even existed.
	So this is human nature, unfortunately.
	It's the way of the world.
	Now, does that mean that we can't do anything about it?
	Does it mean we should accept it and surrender ourselves to it?
	Absolutely not.
	What it means is that we must emphasize two things in society, and one is justice, punishing the bad guys, punishing harshly and swiftly, and two is self-defense, which requires guns, whether you like it or not.
	During Monday's episode of ABC's The View, the co-host's conversation about Martin Luther King Jr.
	Day led to sparring over how learning about slavery and other human rights abuses in American history should make white students feel.
	While Anna Navarro argued that nobody should feel bad while being taught about the past simply because of the color of their skin, Sarah Haynes was adamant in her belief that white children must feel responsibility for the actions of their forefathers.
	Here's the kid.
	Click one.
	I think there's more to it than that.
	Look, I think what it is, is that black history and other things banning books has been weaponized for political purposes to drive people to the polls based on outrage because my poor little white kid is feeling bad because he's learning about slavery.
	That's ridiculous.
	Learning about history should not make anybody feel bad.
	We learn about history.
	You feel bad.
	No, but it's important that it makes you feel bad.
	I don't think it should make you feel bad.
	I mean, I don't think a white child that's had nothing to do with slavery should feel bad about slavery.
	I think we need to learn history so that we don't repeat the same as yes about history.
	The thing that people are focusing on in that clip is the conversation about how white kids should feel.
	But even before you get there, you know, just even the phrase, poor little white kid, oh, you're poor little white kid.
	This is once again this total contempt and scorn being heaped on white people without hiding it, without covering it, without feeling the need to hide it at all.
	And all you have to do is imagine what it would sound like for someone to say, oh, your poor little black kid.
	You're poor little black kid.
	Boohoo.
	You can't imagine anyone on television using that phrase in any context, you just can't imagine it.
	It would never happen.
	And yet, there is, there's no compunction, there's no, don't hesitate at all to use this kind of language when talking about white people.
	And, you know, it's not sustainable, I guess is the point.
	And people like me have been warning this for a long time, and you can reject the warnings, but it is just not sustainable.
	You cannot take one, and I think history has taught us this.
	History has taught us this again and again and again.
	It's maybe one of the primary lessons that history teaches us.
	You cannot take a group of people and make them the villains, make them the bad guys, and just heap nothing but scorn and contempt on them all the time and expect it to just continue that way without any blowback, without any pushback, and everything's going to be fine.
	You can't expect that.
	And it's really as simple as that.
	Now, obviously, the stuff about slavery is completely ridiculous.
	Now, if you mean that kids should feel bad in the same way that you feel sad when you read about any bad thing that happened in history, like if you read about the Titanic sinking, does that make you feel bad?
	I mean, it doesn't make you feel good, right?
	It's a sad thing.
	So you have feelings of sadness when you hear about a tragedy that occurred in history.
	But feel bad usually means feeling responsible, feeling guilty.
	It's like when you've done something, you say, I feel bad about that.
	Which is why nobody would ever say, I feel bad about the Titanic's sinking.
	I feel really bad about that.
	Geez, sorry about that.
	I feel bad.
	Because it makes it sound like you're holding yourself responsible for the sinking of the Titanic, which of course makes no sense.
	It equally makes no sense to say that about slavery.
	I feel bad about it.
	Like me, I feel bad.
	I didn't have nothing to do with it.
	So no, in that sense, of course, white kids shouldn't feel bad about slavery in the sense of feeling guilty and responsible, which is the sense that it was meant there.
	But of course, the whole premise of the conversation is totally false.
	And we keep, you know, it's one false premise after another from the left.
	This is maybe the most, among the most absurd of all of them is this, that there are people out there who are objecting to slavery being mentioned in a historical context at all, which is not happening.
	Nobody objects to white kids or kids of any race learning about slavery in history class.
	I've not heard one single person ever say that, which is really saying something, because you could take any idea, any like nutty, crazy idea, these days especially, you could probably find at least somebody who believes it.
	But in this case, I have not heard this anywhere.
	I have not heard one single person ever say that we shouldn't be teaching about slavery in school.
	I've never heard that.
	The point about slavery, aside from the one that I've made many times, which is that a real study of slavery should be far more expansive to include the fact that slavery was a global institution for millennia.
	So if anything, my point about it is that, no, we shouldn't be saying less about slavery.
	We should be saying more about it, actually.
	I mean, it is one of the significant facts of the history of human civilization, is that this institution existed for thousands of years.
	And it's very interesting to think about why that was the case.
	How did this come about in the first place?
	How is it that for thousands of years, humanity took this for granted?
	And for thousands of years, really, almost nobody even thought to object.
	Honestly, for thousands of years, it really didn't even occur to anyone that there might be a problem here.
	And that includes many of the great geniuses of history that didn't appear to have a fundamental issue with the institution of slavery all across the world.
	That is an interesting fact.
	It's also a tragedy.
	It's terrible.
	But it's interesting.
	It's like that's something you could try to figure out.
	How could you have this kind of global blind spot that so many people shared for thousands of years?
	So yeah, that should be a subject of historical investigation.
	But it's not, because when we talk about slavery, we only talk about it in the most limited way possible, because we are not allowed to admit that every other race of people are also guilty for this institution that existed for thousands of years.
	But aside from all that, at a more fundamental level, the point about slavery is that it is a historical subject.
	It is a matter of history, and it should be studied and viewed that way.
	And so as far as I'm concerned, as long as we're doing that, it's a historical subject.
	It's not something, at least in this country, that exists today or that people today are responsible for, at least in this country, if they keep qualifying that way, because it does exist in other parts of the world, especially in non-white parts of the world.
	And it was a much more expansive phenomenon than what we're told.
	So those are my two points about slavery.

▲