Ep. 1633 - Feminist Rape Hoax Obliterates Lives Of Canadian Hockey Stars
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a very high profile rape case in Canada involving five professional hockey players has come to an end. The men were all acquitted because the whole thing was a hoax. And yet their lives and careers have already been destroyed. The story sounds bad. It gets worse. We'll discuss. Also, is Donald Trump actually considering giving a pardon to P Diddy? If so, why in the hell would he do that? And an elected official in Cincinnati publicly declares that she was happy to see white people getting beaten unconscious at the music festival this past weekend. Plus there's a new Batman film in the works. This one portrays Batman as an avenging Aztec warrior going to battle against the villainous European colonizers. You thought wokeness was dead. Not quite.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1633
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Journey to the UFC: Joe Pyfer now—streaming exclusively on DailyWire+.
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH
American Financing - Call American Financing today to find out how customers are saving an avg of $800/mo. 866-569-4711 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/walsh NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org
ARMRA - Go to https://armra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout to receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Tax Network USA - For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit their website at https://TNUSA.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today, the Matt Walsh show, a very high-profile rape case in Canada involving five professional hockey players, has come to an end.
The men were all acquitted because the whole thing was a hoax, yet their lives and careers have already been destroyed.
The story sounds bad.
It gets even worse, and we'll discuss it.
Also, is Donald Trump actually considering giving a pardon to P. Diddy?
And if so, why in the hell would he ever do that?
An elected official in Cincinnati publicly declares that she was happy to see white people getting beaten unconscious at the music festival this past weekend.
Plus, there's a new Batman film in the works.
This one portrays Batman as an avenging Aztec warrior going to battle against the villainous European colonizers.
You thought Wokeness was dead?
Not quite.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Music.
How many times have you told someone, if it ain't broke, don't fix it?
Now, that's great advice for most things, but not so much for a cell phone.
See, over time, the battery life fades, the processor can't keep up.
It's fallen in the toilet maybe one too many times.
Fortunately, thanks to PureTalk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty.
When you switch to PureTalk this month, they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy A36 for free with a $35 qualifying plan.
Just $35 a month for talk text and plenty of data as well.
And a free Samsung phone with scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass and a battery that lasts all day.
All America's most dependable 5G network.
Truly, it is a dependable network.
I use PureTalk for work and the Daily Wire and continually have reliable, very fast service that I don't have to worry about.
Look, supporting companies like PureTalk, that's a very good thing.
You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half.
They win by hiring more Americans and helping more veterans.
And we win that way also.
Everyone's winning.
Make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.
Go to puretalk.com slash walsh to get your free phone today.
Again, that's puretalk.com slash walsh to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, PureTalk.
Imagine that one day your completely non-threatening, well-adjusted neighbor is suddenly overcome with bloodlust.
He becomes transfixed by delusions as he rants and raves in a bizarre frenzy.
And then imagine that these delusions don't go away.
They continue for a very long time, many years, in fact.
Even if your neighbor isn't that important or interesting, you probably pause for a moment to figure out what's going on, if only for the sake of your own security, peace of mind, and morbid curiosity.
This is why every so often it's important to check in, as we do on this show, on Canada, our neighbor to the north.
Even as they watch their quality of life plummet as foreign invaders flood into their country, Canadians have not turned their outrage on their leaders.
In fact, Canadians have just re-elected those leaders.
Instead, Canadians have become obsessed to a psychotic degree with exacting vengeance on two specific groups.
And their first target, as we discussed many times before, is Christians.
Arsonists torched dozens of churches in Canada because of a lie about mass graves being discovered at residential schools.
And so we know about that.
We've talked about it.
The other target in Canada, which has become increasingly obvious, is white males.
They're frequently defamed and demonized in bizarre, coordinated hoaxes.
A few years ago, the trucker convoy got a taste of this deep-seated hatred.
They were falsely accused of committing apartment arson before they were debanked and beaten in the streets.
More recently, though, as you may have heard or maybe not, five professional hockey players, members of Canada's world junior hockey team who went on to play in the NHL, were accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room in London, Ontario, all the way back in June of 2018.
This is a case that has transfixed all of Canada.
It's like their OJ trial.
And it's worth discussing at length because no one in Canada's state-owned media has told the truth about it.
So I'll begin by recounting the version of events that Canadians have been told to believe for several years now.
The condensed version of the official narrative is that these hockey players between the ages of 18 and 20 went to a bar after attending a fundraiser.
And according to Canadian media, the players met a 20-year-old woman named E.M. and proceeded to buy her several drinks to the point that she was out of it, quote unquote, and was completely unaware of what was happening.
And then one of the players left the bar, took the woman to a hotel room, and had sex with her before inviting other hockey players into the room to potentially engage in sex acts with her as well.
Now, initially, the police didn't take her claim seriously, but when the woman filed a civil lawsuit against Hockey Canada, the regulatory body that oversees the sport, things began to change.
Hockey Canada decided to settle, even though the police decided there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges.
And what followed were years of allegations in the Canadian media that Hockey Canada was corrupt and that these five hockey players had gotten away with sexually assaulting this poor innocent woman.
The police eventually caved under pressure from every politician in Canada, and they arrested the players in early 2024.
Here's just one example of the kind of coverage that Canadian state media was producing during this period.
Watch.
And now the Minister of Sport has had enough.
I think this is a breaking point for hockey.
I really feel like hockey as it is is in danger.
It's the Canadian scandal that won't go away.
Mr. Smith, police say they have reasonable grounds to believe that five members of the 2018 junior hockey committed sexual assault in that hotel room that night.
The story starts here at Jack's Pub in London in June 2018 when members of Canada's national junior team arrived to celebrate after a hockey Canada fundraiser.
Jack's is London's go-to place for cheap drinks and a dance floor packed with late teens and 20-something.
And what's alleged to have happened next would trigger a national scandal, a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and a crisis unlike any that hockey has known.
The statement of claim is in EM's words.
She alleges John Doe number one and his teammates bought her a number of alcoholic beverages and shots.
She became increasingly intoxicated throughout the night, with glassy eyes, slurred speech, stumbling, and loss of balance.
So already you see how this is being presented.
It's a scandal so bad, we're told, that it could be a breaking point for hockey.
The entire sport of hockey is in danger, says a very stern-looking woman who serves as the minister of sport.
Yes, the act of hitting a puck into a goal with a stick and skating a lot on the ice is somehow in jeopardy because of the events that took place in a hotel room back in 2018.
That's how powerful these five random NHL players are.
And if we don't stop these five white guys now, who knows what's next?
They might end up erasing baseball and soccer, too.
It's an existential threat to everything we hold dear.
As the CBC program went on, various experts appeared to make the case that something really nefarious and criminal had occurred.
And as they did so, they were careful to minimize any evidence that suggested the hockey players might be totally innocent.
Watch.
I mean, it was a very, it sounds like a very coercive and abusive experience that she was subjected to.
We asked law professor Melanie Randall of Western University in London, an expert on sexual assault, to interpret E.M.'s version of events.
It makes sense that in a situation like that, when you feel under threat, when you feel stressed, when you feel that the threat of violation is imminent, that you would just try to get through it.
She also described trying to leave on multiple occasions and that the exit to the unit was blocked.
She described crying.
She explained that she needed to retreat to the bathroom to get away on multiple occasions.
She was unable to say no.
Throughout the encounter, she felt disassociated from everything.
Imagine being a young woman in a crowded hotel room with a group of strapping young men who are athletes, who are much bigger.
The general public don't understand.
They just think, why didn't you fight back?
Why didn't you say no?
Why didn't you get the hell out of there?
She described why she didn't.
It was a very stressful, very frightening experience that should never have happened.
Make a mental note of two key elements that are being excused here.
First, we're told to ignore the fact that E.M. might have been a willing participant in the sexual encounter, which seems like a rather relevant detail for a rape trial.
We're told that according to a law professor, this detail somehow is not relevant to consider.
And then we're told that E.M was unable to say no, although that's not really explained.
The implication is that she was physically being held in the room against her will because the men were blocking the door or something.
In terms of first-hand verifiable information, probably the most important evidence in this case were two videos that were shot inside the hotel room by the hockey players that night.
And here's how CBC addresses those videos.
The videos you were shown, describe them, please.
Well, one of the videos was about six seconds in length.
It was very grainy.
It was clear that it had been shot on a cell phone.
And the video showed a woman, and she was being asked if it was okay.
And she said, it's okay.
And that was it.
And then the second video was longer, and it was about 12 seconds long.
And it looked as if it was in a hotel room.
And the woman was shown sort of from here up with a bath towel around her and asked someone if she was being filmed.
And if so, why she was being filmed.
And said that everything was fine and that she was, and this was her words, she was too sober to do this right now.
I think for me, why are they filming these videos is a big question that people had when those stories came out in the summer.
And we know from Player One's interview, he says to the London police, he took this because he was worried about a police investigation.
That's what the ITO claims, that he told officers this.
Now, first of all, before we go any further, I need to make it clear that they lied about what she says in the video.
So here's the full transcript from the second video.
Quote, EM.
Okay, it was all consensual.
Are you recording me?
Michael McLeod.
Yeah.
EM, okay.
Good.
It was all consensual.
Another hockey player asks, what else?
And EM responds, you are so paranoid.
I enjoyed it.
It was fine.
It was all consensual.
I am so sober.
That's why I can't do this right now.
Close quote.
Additionally, the judge determined that, quote, while speaking on the video, EM does not display any signs of intoxication.
She has no difficulty speaking or standing.
She is not slurring her words and speaks clearly and coherently.
In that video from CBC, as you may have noticed, they only give you the last sentence.
They don't tell you she was clearly sober.
And they omit the fact that she repeatedly said that everything was consensual.
Which you think would be the beginning and that's the open and shut case right there.
You have the woman on video immediately after this encounter saying multiple times it was consensual.
There's no case.
None at all.
Now, instead of telling the truth, they imply that the sheer fact that this video exists is, in fact, somehow evidence of guilt.
After all, why would the players want to record a video demonstrating this woman consented?
Isn't that something a guilty person would do?
If you don't have evidence of your innocence, well, then that means you're guilty.
And if you do have evidence of your innocence, it also means you're guilty.
That's the logic here.
So here's the problem, which I mean should be very obvious.
In Canada and in many states in this country, affirmative consent is now mandatory.
You're required by law to take some overt, explicit steps to demonstrate that you have consent before you have sex in every context.
And you're required to keep checking in.
This is what affirmative consent is.
It's what they teach on college campuses.
Here's a video from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for example, Followed by an interview with a Canadian feminist on a news program, Watch.
So you're making out and you decide you're not comfortable with where it's going.
If you say no or show that you don't want to participate, it should stop there, and that's okay.
Or you're making out and you decide you really like where it's going and you let the other person know.
You have given sexual consent.
Remember, because your body is yours, you can still say no at any time.
And whoever you're with must respect that.
See, sexual consent should be clear, voluntary, enthusiastic, and ongoing.
One person seeks consent and the other person gives consent.
One more thing.
There are laws about sexual consent and you should learn them.
What is consent?
Consent is saying that you agree with sex and that you will agree with what's coming.
It's not just about saying words, it's about your body language, it's about the way you're responding to what happens.
It's about communication and communication isn't just a one-word thing as we know.
It's not just yes or no.
We have to have a continual conversation and it has to be backed up with regular check-ins.
It's a dance.
It's not just you say yes once and then you've got carte blanche for the rest of your life.
The implication of all these instructions is pretty obvious.
If consent means that you need both explicit and implicit signs of consent, and that consent can be revoked at any time, then men face a very difficult, if not really insurmountable, impossible burden of proof in the event of a false allegation.
From a rational perspective, the best way to satisfy this burden of proof would be recording footage after the encounter is over, affirming that everything was indeed consensual and that everyone is relatively sober.
You think that would do the trick?
That's exactly what these hockey players did.
And yet, in doing so, now we're told that the hockey players simply provided more evidence of their guilt.
So they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
This is an obvious smear campaign, very clear, but it's worked.
There are tens of thousands of vitriolic social media posts directed at them.
The posts are continuing today.
The reputations and careers have been destroyed.
The NHL kicked them out of the league.
And yet, after all these lies and despite all this public pressure, all five of the players were just acquitted of all the charges against them.
In a trial, in a case that never should have happened, they were acquitted.
Yes, you heard that correctly.
Canada's Daniel Penny case has effectively just taken place.
A judge heard all the evidence and rendered the correct verdict.
And here's what the judge looked like.
Now, admittedly, it's a fairly low-resolution courtroom sketch.
One might say this sketch is so bad that it has no reason to exist.
And you'd be right if you said that.
So here's an actual photo of the judge.
Her name is Justice Maria Caroccia.
She's the eldest child of Italian immigrants.
And against all odds, in defiance of an awful lot of stereotypes about female judges, especially ones in Canada, frankly, she issued a very lengthy takedown of every single charge against these hockey players.
And then she acquitted every single one of them.
It's not an exaggeration to say that this decision, all 91 pages of it, is the single greatest indictment of feminist propaganda that has been written in the past decade.
It is a point-by-point refutation of every single claim that was made by feminists and left-wing activists in this case, as well as their broader claims that women's subjective beliefs are more important than observable, verifiable facts.
You could read the whole decision online, but I'm going to go through some of the most important parts of it now.
We'll start with this observation from the judge from page 64 of her decision.
Quote, the complainant gave a vague answer when it was suggested to her in cross-examination that it was easier for her to deny the deliberate choices she made on June 18th and 19th, 2018, than to acknowledge the shame, guilt, and embarrassment about those choices.
She did not deny the suggestion.
She said, I don't know.
I'm kind of struggling to understand that.
And went on to explain that she blames herself and that other people should be held accountable, but it was a combination of things.
On several occasions, the complainant referred to her evidence as her truth rather than the truth, which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true.
In other words, the judge picked up on the fact that this woman was willing to state explicitly that her emotions or her truth were more important than the actual truth.
This is how everyone in all contexts should respond to the idea that individuals have their own truth.
They should be immediately discredited.
Everything they say should be disregarded, which is what happened eventually in this case.
And it's clear why this alleged victim would resort to talking about her truth instead of the facts.
As it turns out, EM had a boyfriend at the time of this incident.
No big surprise there.
She had just cheated on him with several hockey players.
And after that experience in the hotel room, she went home and cried in her bathroom until her mother discovered her.
And at that point, her mother and father wanted to know what had happened.
Without consulting her daughter in any meaningful way, the mother called the police and decided that her child had been drugged.
So there's a very clear reason why her truth might suddenly emerge in that context.
She needed a way to absolve herself of her conduct so that her mother and her boyfriend would not be upset with her.
That's the motive.
That is a very common motive in cases like this.
A woman goes out, behaves in a whorish and despicable way, as this woman did, and then feels regret and decides rather than be accountable, she's going to destroy the lives of numerous people, numerous innocent people.
She would rather utterly ruin their lives than accept any accountability for her own despicable, scummy, disgusting behavior.
And that's not all.
If you go back and look at the text that this woman sent on the night of this incident, it becomes clear that she was upset because the players didn't care much about her.
Quoting from the judge's decision, quote, she agreed in cross-examination that at this point in the evening, she began to think that Mr. McLeod was a jerk because he was just getting ready to go to bed and wanted her to leave.
He said something like, are you going to leave anytime soon?
This comment made her feel like he was not treating her respectfully.
This annoyed her.
She felt he was being rude.
She agreed with her suggestion made to her that she called him a jerk at this point.
Mr. McLeod did not walk her to the door.
He got into bed to go to sleep.
He did not call her a cab or an Uber.
The complainant acknowledged as well that she was upset with Mr. McLeod and asked her if she was sure that she didn't have any STDs.
She was offended by the question.
Now, we'll get to in a minute here why these men might not have had any respect for this woman.
She was not treating herself with any respect.
She not really, you know, and that's the way it goes when you have random hookups with strangers.
Yeah, you know, they don't respect you.
You don't respect them.
You're both using each other.
That's the way it goes.
That's what you signed up for.
And this is a very familiar set of facts.
This woman had a porn star fantasy, but in practice, it turned out to be extremely degrading and awkward for everybody involved.
And then the regret kicked in.
And rather than explain the truth to her family and boyfriend, she chose the easy lie.
But even if you put aside her obvious motive to lie, there's a mountain of other evidence that she was, in fact, lying.
Let's put some of those up on the screen.
Again, this is from the judge's decision.
Quote, the complainant testified that Mr. Riclead took her hand and placed it on his crotch, as did others.
In cross-examination, EM was shown a video, and she acknowledged that the video clearly showed that she touched Mr. Riclead's genital area.
Mr. Ricleyad did not guide her hand nor cause her to touch him.
The complainant testified that the players bought six of the drinks she consumed.
This was not supported by the video evidence.
The video from Jack's bar shows that E.M. purchased eight drinks for herself.
EM testified that the players separated her from her friends.
She was shown the video from Jack's bar that showed that throughout the night, she spoke to a bouncer who she identified as a friend from high school.
She also had a long conversation with him at the end of the night.
Okay, so we have, so, so just you're getting the thing here.
We have we have multiple videos all throughout, which you don't normally have in cases like this, but which is why very often when men are victims of false rape claims, they're just screwed because they don't have all this video evidence.
Usually there's not a lot of video, but in this case, there's video evidence documenting throughout the night from the beginning to the end, where you see that she's lying every step of the way, that she was initiating it, that she was drinking on her own, that she touched him.
At the end of the night, she said it was consensual multiple times.
And with all that video evidence, they still had their lives destroyed, their careers over, and they were arrested anyway.
Oh, and also, as for the claim that she was blocked from leaving the room, here's another portion of the ruling.
Quote, EM agreed with a suggestion in cross-examination that none of the men physically stopped her from leaving the room.
When asked why she did not leave after coming out of the bathroom, since the door to the room was very close to the bathroom door, she explained that she did not think of that.
Oh, she did.
She wanted to leave, supposedly, but she didn't think of leaving.
She didn't, she, there's a door right there with the exit to leave.
And she, and so she's sitting there in the room and she's thinking to herself, hmm, I really want to leave.
I wish that I wasn't in this room anymore.
Hmm, how, how might I, how can I, what can I do about that?
I'm in a place right now and I would like to not be in that place anymore.
How do I solve this problem?
What do I do?
Well, it never occurred to her to stand up, use her legs, walk to the door, open it, and leave.
She never thought of that.
Just never thought of it.
Which means it's the men's fault and they should go to prison as rapists, right?
Now, it goes on from there.
She lied about pretty much every relevant fact on the night in question.
Nothing about her story makes sense.
Ultimately, on cross-examination, she quote, agreed while testifying that she filled in the gaps in her memory or knowledge with assumptions.
At one point in her ruling, the judge even provided a bullet list of all the gaps in her memory.
Now, I'm not going to read them all, but you can see them on the screen.
She supposedly didn't remember dancing with one of the players, texting a friend, speaking to the bouncer, being recorded on either of the videos, or much of what was said in the hotel room.
She also didn't remember, quote, having sex with Mr. McCleot in the shower at the end of the night until it was included in the statement of claim filed in 2022.
That last part is especially significant.
This incident happened in 2018.
At the time, the alleged victim provided three statements to the police.
None of those statements mentioned that she was fearful in any way during these encounters.
Instead, she said that she liked the attention she was receiving.
But all of that changed once the multi-million dollar lawsuit was filed several years later.
And at that point, she suddenly claimed to have experienced, quote, terror and fear.
But even in 2022, she gave a statement to Hockey Canada investigators on July 20th, 2022, in which she said, quote, she agreed, quote, that she was not so drunk at the time that she could not consent to engage in sexual activity.
Now, already there are about a million holes with this story.
I mean, it's already there's it's proven.
It's like undeniably proven that she is lying and that no rape occurred.
This woman is clearly not credible and the case never should have made it anywhere near trial.
Nobody should have been arrested.
There should have been no trial, nothing.
There should have been zero consequences for these men.
All the consequences should have went to this despicable woman.
We'll talk about that more.
But we'll put up one more portion of the judge's decision because this is really where things get over the top.
Quote, on the basis of all the evidence, I find as fact that the complainant did express that she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men.
And I have to read this.
This is going to get vulgar and graphic, unfortunately, but this is what the decision says.
This is what the judge said.
It says she did engage in sexual activity with the men by saying things like, is someone going to F me and masturbating?
Given the issues relating to the credibility and reliability of the complaint's evidence, I conclude that I cannot rely on it.
Well, that's the understatement of the century.
If you're masturbating and demanding that men, quote, F you, then it's safe to say that you've consented to sexual activity.
Okay?
You don't need Perry Mason on this one.
If that doesn't count as consent, then nothing ever could.
If a woman sitting there is, you know, already engaging in sexual activity and saying, hey, someone come have sex with me.
If that's not consent, If a man is a rapist because he engages in sexual activity with a woman under those circumstances, then every man in history is a rapist and every sexual encounter that has ever occurred was rape.
Now, there were other incriminating quotes from this alleged victim, too, like when she taunted the men for not wanting to have sex with her, she called them the P-word.
And when she was asked in court about whether she said all this, she didn't deny it.
Oh, and by the way, the alleged victim also admitted, quote, it could have appeared I was consenting.
And when she was asked whether a hockey player had said, quote, this girl is effing crazy, she agreed, quote, that could have been said in response to her saying, someone have sex with me.
I could spend the next hour going through all the many absurdities in this case, but simply, there's not a single shred of credible evidence justifying any of these charges or the crazed vitriol these players had to endure, still have to endure.
Their lives were destroyed because of a very obvious fraud.
Even now, after this acquittal, the NHL won't let them back in the league.
Outside the courthouse, one of the defense lawyers made it clear how predictable all of this was.
Watch.
To anyone who is surprised or angered by today's outcome, it is the direct result of the media's ongoing failure to publicize the weaknesses in the prosecution's case as it unfolded.
The Office of the Crown Attorney knew what today's verdict was likely to be.
And the evidence at trial came as no surprise to them or anyone with full knowledge of the investigation.
Almost every single feature of the evidence that Justice Carrasia identified today as fatal flaws for the Crown was known to prosecutors and to police from 2018.
Today's outcome was not just predictable, it was predicted.
The Crown Attorney did not have to take this case to trial.
Mr. Hart, in particular, was willing to engage in a restorative justice process.
He was willing to be publicly named and prepared to use his public platform to teach other athletes about how to ensure that their sexual encounters are responsible and thoughtful.
The last part there is interesting, though, not for the reasons this lawyer is implying.
It's true that in Canada, so-called restorative justice is often provided as an alternative to imprisonment, but it's usually only offered to non-white defendants.
Consider that at the same time these white men were being prosecuted for a crime they clearly did not commit, foreign nationals were being let out of jail in obvious cases of sexual assault.
This is from the National Post reporting out of Calgary.
Quote, 25-year-old Rajmir Singh, currently here on a visitor's permit after initially coming to Canada in 2018 to study, was out one night at the back alley nightclub when he groped an 18-year-old woman's genitals under her skirt as she stood at the bar to buy a drink.
When she turned around in shock, he did it again and walked away.
According to the court ruling, Singh was found guilty of sexual assault at trial, but he wasn't convicted.
Instead, in January, he was given a discharge by Justice A.J. Brown.
The judge explained that a conviction would automatically result in deportation without a right to appeal, while a discharge wouldn't generate a permanent criminal record and would preserve Singh's right to appeal his deportation.
Well, yes, because you wouldn't want, I mean, you wouldn't want a foreigner who's in a back alley groping women to be deported.
No, we got to keep these people here.
What this means is that the Canadian legal system will go out of its way to reward foreigners who commit actual sex offenses, but white men will have their lives destroyed because a woman decides to invent her own, quote, truth.
Now, the only way to restore the rule of law in places like Canada and to prevent similar hoaxes from taking place here is to actually charge hoaxers like this woman and give them the same kind of sentence the men would have gotten if they were convicted.
That's not happening anywhere.
I mean, this despicable, awful woman deserves to rot in prison for the rest of her life.
She should never see.
She is just as evil as a rapist, and she is just as much a threat to society and to innocent people as a rapist.
A woman who would try to get revenge on men who hurt her feelings by destroying their lives, ending their careers, and attempting to have them thrown in prison is an evil and dangerous person who does not deserve to ever see the outside of a prison cell ever again.
So throw her in jail.
And if for some reason you can't do that, then create a registry like the sex offender registry, but for lying women who make up rape claims and put her on it.
Make her walk around to her neighbors every time she moves into a new community and alert them to the fact that she's a rape hoaxer and she'll be living next door.
Brand her with this scarlet letter for the rest of her life so that men know to avoid her for the sake of their own safety.
That at least, at least that, at least that should be the consequence.
That's not happening either.
Until it does, men, particularly white men, should understand that consent isn't actually that important to these people.
What's important is control over you.
And one way or another, even if the facts completely contradict their narrative, they'll find a way to exert that control.
And they will continue to do that until we finally recognize the threat we're up against.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
That's right.
Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room.
It is possible when you call American Financing today.
If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas, bills, all piling up, well, you're not alone.
Most Americans are putting those expenses on credit cards and there doesn't seem to be a way out.
American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt.
You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments.
Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners, just like you, restructure their loans and consolidate debt all without upfront fees.
And their customers are saving an average of $800 a month.
That's like a $10,000 raise.
And look, it's fast, it's simple, could save your budget this summer.
Call now before it's too late, 866-569-4711-866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.
Deadline reports, Donald Trump is heavily weighing giving Sean Diddy Combs a full presidential pardon ahead of the convicted Bad Boy Records founder's sentencing later this year.
Nearly two months after Trump publicly entertained the notion of a Diddy pardon in an Oval Office gaggle, a comprehensive get out of jail card for Combs is being seriously considered, an administration source tells, deadline.
Now, I have no idea if this is true or not.
I like to think it's fake news.
Maybe it is.
Obviously, we know the news media loves to make up Trump stories, so maybe they are here.
But then again, Trump was asked about this a few weeks ago, and he didn't rule out the idea of a pardon when he was asked about it.
So let's go back.
This was back July 2nd or 3rd, I think.
And Peter Ducey over at Fox News asked him, is there any chance of a pardon?
And here's what Trump said at the time.
You mentioned once in 2012 that Diddy was a good friend of yours.
Back then, he has since found himself in some very serious legal trouble.
That's true.
Would you ever consider pardoning him?
Well, nobody's asked.
You had to be the one to ask, Peter, but nobody's asked.
But I know people are thinking about it.
I know they're thinking about it.
I think that people have been very close to asking.
First of all, I'd look at what's happening, and I haven't been watching it too closely, although it's certainly getting a lot of coverage.
I haven't seen him.
I haven't spoken to him in years.
He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, that relationship busted up from what I read.
I don't know.
He didn't tell me that, but I'd read some little bit nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden.
You know, it's different.
You become a much different person when you run for politics and you do what's right.
I could do other things, and I'm sure he'd like me, and I'm sure other people would like me, but it wouldn't be as good for our country.
As we said, our country's doing really well because of what we're doing.
So I can't, it's not a popularity contest.
So I don't know.
I would certainly look at the facts.
If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact on me.
So he says he's going to look into it.
And he talks about how Diddy used to like him and now he doesn't.
Not sure why that would factor into the answer at all.
Now, granted, Trump does not say that he'll pardon him, but he doesn't rule it out.
And if it were me, it would be very easy to say, hell no, I'm not going to pardon that freak.
Why would I?
We wouldn't pardon him.
Why would I?
Why would I waste one second of my time thinking of that freak?
No, I'm not going to pardon him.
He's got an army of defense attorneys, and they've already gotten him off the hook on the most serious charges.
So, no, I'm not going to swoop in for him.
But Trump doesn't respond that way.
And technically, sure, saying that you have to look into something before you give an answer is a fair response.
But let me just say this.
Pardoning the diddler would be a completely insane act of political suicide.
I don't know if it's actually being considered, but if it is, it would be perhaps the greatest unforced error in the last 25 years of American politics, especially now, especially given all the bad press with the Epstein stuff.
I mean, in the midst of that, even without that, but in the midst of it in particular, to even entertain the idea of giving a pardon to this other high-profile sexual deviant, it just, why?
Why would you even, why would that be on the table of anything that you would ever consider doing?
It would be a political disaster.
It's also the wrong thing to do.
I mean, politically, it's a total disaster.
Who are you appealing to politically?
Like, is there some outcry anywhere among any people to let Diddy off the hook?
But more importantly, it's just the wrong thing to do.
The diddler is a disgusting pervert freak.
He's a terrible person.
He's on camera beating his girlfriend.
He was hanging out with Justin Bieber when he was like 14, grooming him and doing God knows what else, having giant drug-fueled orgies every other day for like 20 years.
Why in the hell would you fall on the sword for that degenerate scumbag?
Why would you do that?
Of all the people who deserve pardons, why him?
Why even consider it?
And I don't want to hear any argument about how, well, technically, you know, most people who commit the crimes that Diddler committed wouldn't be prosecuted the same way, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not convinced that's true, but even if it is, who cares?
If you live your life as a totally out of control, depraved, abusive, deviant, you know, weirdo, then eventually it blows up in your face.
And you deserve it.
That's all.
Let this guy deal with the consequences of being just an absolutely disgusting, depraved lowlife.
Don't stand in the way and protect this sick bastard.
Why even consider that?
Why spend one second contemplating that possibility?
So I hope that that is not going to happen.
Yesterday, we went into a deeper dive into the situation in Cincinnati and the campaign of anti-white race hatred that led to the brutal assaults on white people of the city this past weekend.
I made the case that the city has been systemically and systematically anti-white and run by anti-white bigots for a long time.
And all that led to, and that's what primed the pump for, the chaos over the weekend.
So that was the, and if you didn't watch the show yesterday, go back and watch it.
There's one more example.
There's one more piece of evidence to make this case that I didn't mention yesterday.
And at the time when I recorded the show yesterday, this other thing was circulating, but I wasn't sure if it was real.
And I didn't want to repeat it or amplify it until I was sure that it was actually real.
Because it's one of those things that you see and it's like you it's like you know it's probably real, but you want it.
In a sane world, you'd see this and you'd go, there's no, I can't, that, that can't be true.
But it is real.
So the New York Post reports, an Ohio City council member disturbingly claimed that the victims of the Cincinnati downtown brawl were asking to be assaulted during the ruthless mob attack.
They asked for that beatdown.
Cincinnati Councilwoman Victoria Parks replied to video of the July 7th brawl on Facebook.
I'm grateful for the whole story, she added.
The 67-year-old Democrat angered Cincinnati's police union boss who blasted Parks for the comments and called for resignation.
It's unconscionable that an elected official will be celebrating violence in the very city she was voted to serve.
And other people were expressing their anger as well.
So this is Victoria Parks, a councilwoman in the city, saying that these white people had it coming and that she's grateful for it.
Even taking the racial dimensions out of it, you're a council member in the city and there is violence breaking out and you're grateful for the whole story.
What?
And by the way, just to put up the visual, to put a little visual with it and to show you what Victoria Parks is grateful for, I want you to look at this picture.
I'll put it up on the screen.
This is Holly.
This is the white woman who was assaulted.
And this is what she looks like now.
Okay, you can see it there.
She suffered a severe concussion.
Her injuries are quite significant.
Her entire face is badly bruised and cut.
Huge black eye.
And Victoria Parks, an elected official in the city, is grateful for that.
That's what she's grateful for.
Now, I probably don't need to spend very much time explaining why no elected official, why no one in general should be celebrating racially motivated mob violence or mob violence of any kind.
I don't need to explain that Victoria Parks is an evil person and a despicable racist and should be thrown out of office and jeered at and condemned everywhere she goes for the rest of her life.
That's all obvious.
And if it's not obvious to you, then there's not much I could do for you.
To me, the bigger and more important point is that this woman felt comfortable making this statement publicly, casually on Facebook.
What does that tell you?
What does it tell you that she was perfectly comfortable announcing to the world that she thinks that white women deserve to be brutalized in the street?
It's one thing if you catch somebody like this on a secret camera footage, a hidden camera or something like that, you record without them knowing, and that would still be really bad.
But this is her on Facebook just leaving a comment.
Two comments.
So she posted the first comment and then really liked how that went.
And so she posted a second one and said she's grateful for the whole story.
What does it tell you?
Well, it tells you that this kind of bigotry has been, as we covered yesterday, a part of the system in that city and every major city for decades.
It has metastasized.
It has cemented.
And now people like Victoria Parks just take it for granted.
She's a boomer woman.
She's in her 60s, which means most likely for her entire public life, for as long as she's had any kind of position in government, it has been entirely acceptable to express open disdain and hostility to white people.
And now that is now changing.
That is now finally changing.
And there are a lot of people who are really caught off guard by it because they've gotten used to this.
They've gotten used to living in a world where no one would, you know, calling out anti-white race hatred was no, you know, it's like, it just never happened, especially on, and so if you were a, again, a city council member in Cincinnati, you never, you could say whatever you wanted in that vein because no one would ever call you out for it.
And this is the world they grew up in, the world they've lived in.
They've gotten very used to it, very accustomed to it.
And it's changing.
All right.
By now, we've covered the Sidney Sweeney thing.
I think enough has been said about it.
Too much has been said about it, frankly, way too much.
But the left can't stop.
They can't let this go.
And it really is remarkable.
They can't just move past it.
They can't get over the fact that an attractive white woman was featured in an advertisement.
And so every day there are more clips.
There are more think pieces.
There are more rants about how awful and traumatizing all this was.
And, you know, we talked yesterday about the Joey Swole thing and how he caved to the cancel mob and apologized in a very pitiful fashion.
And I was saying how, you know, the thing, one of the many reasons why you shouldn't apologize to the mob is that the mob gets distracted.
They moved on quickly.
So whatever they're upset about, just give it a day, give it 24 hours, give it 12 hours usually, and they'll have moved on.
And that's almost always the case.
I said there are very rare exceptions.
And this is one of those rare exceptions where now we're days and days and days into this.
And they're still like, they're even more upset now about this jeans advertisement than they were when it first happened.
This total hysteria.
So here's one that went pretty viral.
And it's, well, I just have to play it for you.
And this will be the last one, I promise.
Maybe.
We'll see.
Probably not, but we'll see.
Anyway, listen to this.
I really wasn't going to weigh in on this, but here we go.
It is so difficult to grow up as a person Of color, specifically a woman, and view yourself as beautiful in any sense of the word growing up in this country.
I remember growing up in a predominantly white community, wishing myself out of this body, out of this culture, take my name, if it meant that I could wake up blonde-haired and blue-eyed, never having to explain who I am or worry about being accepted.
That is why this American Eagle ad with Sidney Sweeney is especially off-putting.
There's a lot of rhetoric right now online about the political ideologies that this represents, and I don't discount that, but for me, I can't help but think about the 13-year-old brown girl who gets all her denim at American Eagle, who already struggles to see her beauty and worth in a world that continues to value white Eurocentric beauty standards, which I naively thought by this point we would have moved the needle on.
And this girl is now wishing she too could wake up with blonde hair and blue eyes.
It took me so long, too long in my life to look in the mirror and see beauty.
And I hate that that continues to be a shared experience for young brown girls in this country.
Now, first of all, I love how she starts by saying, you know, you know, I wasn't going to weigh in on this, but here we go.
As if anyone on the planet was waiting for her input, as if there's a single human being in existence who wants to hear her opinion about anything at all ever.
So nobody's asking for that.
Of course, social media is full of the dumbest humans in history making proclamations, issuing their philosophical musings like their Socrates.
People who have the stupidest ideas anyone has ever had about anything.
And as soon as those stupid ideas pop into their heads, they pull out the phone, start filming themselves, imagining that they're offering deep profundities to the world, which is basically all of social media.
And some would argue this show also.
So she says that the Sweeney ad was bad because it made her feel less attractive.
And not because Sweeney is attractive, but because Sweeney is white.
And these are people who honest to God believe that white people should simply not appear in advertisements or be seen on TV.
Like we said about Victoria Parks, she's grown so accustomed to anti-white race hatred that she takes it for granted.
And it's the same thing here.
White people have been banished from advertising for so long that people like this woman have just like taken it for granted.
They see a white woman in an advertisement and they're shocked.
They're offended.
A white woman who's not a part of some other victim group, because you, you know, normally they see it for the last years, several years, it's been, okay, you see a white woman pop up an advertisement.
And I know if you're someone on the left, at first it might make you a little nervous.
You're like, what's going on here?
But then you'll quickly find out that, oh, this is someone, this is someone, she's part of some other, maybe it turns out that she's lesbian or she's overweight or she has a mental illness or her non-white, you know, maybe a non-white person is about to walk into the, so that you are allowed, typically, it's not just that you can't have a white woman in advertisement.
That's not the way it you can have, but it has to be, there has to be someone else who's not white who shows up to balance that out.
But what was really shocking for the left with this ad is that, okay, she's a white woman.
She's apparently not LGBT.
She doesn't have any mental illnesses that we know of.
She's not overweight.
And so they're watching this ad and they're getting nervous, but they're like, surely, surely some person of color is going to walk into the frame any moment now.
And then the ad ends and it was just this white woman the whole time.
And they can't believe it.
And they're thinking to themselves, this is like, isn't this an FCC violation?
You can't do this.
They thought it wasn't allowed.
They thought it was like against the law, which just goes to show how bad it's been.
The fact that it's even notable that a white woman is in advertisement, the fact that it's worth talking about at all, much less that it sparked a two-week outrage cycle, shows you how insane things have been.
And now we have women like this on TikTok, you know, claiming that they were traumatized by it.
And by the way, she says that the experience of brown girls is that they look in the mirror and they feel inferior or ugly or whatever.
And that's all the fault of Eurocentric beauty standards.
And there's a couple of things about that, which first of all, if you're worried about so-called Eurocentric beauty standards, whatever that means, then what I don't understand is why aren't you directing your outrage at Beyoncé who bleaches her skin and wears blonde wigs and pretends to do country music?
Okay, you have a famous black female iconic artist who's now doing country music in a blonde wig with skin that she has clearly lightened.
She's trying to transform herself into a white blonde woman, and you're mad at Sidney Sweeney?
Sidney Sweeney is a white blonde woman, okay?
She can't help it.
That's just, that's who she is.
Beyonce is trying to be that, and yet she escapes scrutiny.
Second, also, by the way, the experience of looking in the mirror and feeling self-conscious, that is not a brown woman experience.
That's not a woman experience.
That is a human experience.
Okay?
So get over yourself.
And we've been hearing a lot of this kind of thing, this kind of complaint at the Sidney Sweeney ad about, you don't know what it's like to look, this makes me feel self-conscious.
I'm like, oh, shut up.
You're not special.
All these people who think that their anxieties and insecurities make them special, they don't.
You're not special.
You don't know what it's like in my mind.
No, I do know.
That's called being a person.
All right.
That's called being a human.
You don't know what it's like to grow up and look in the mirror and feel like you're not good enough.
Oh, shut up.
You mean the rest of us don't know what it's like to be a human person in the world?
You think I don't know what that's like?
I'm well aware.
I'm familiar.
I mean, I don't personally obsess over that about myself.
I know I'm kind of ugly, not very ugly, but like a six out of 10, 5.5 on a bad day.
And so I know that.
Sometimes I see clips of myself and they pop up and I'm like, what's wrong with your face?
There's something off.
There's something a little off about it, but it's fine.
It is what it is.
I don't focus on it.
That's the only difference.
It's not worth focusing on.
So the point is that insecurity is a human experience.
Everybody goes through it.
And yet these days you have all these people who truly believe that there's something unique or special about their experience of these utterly commonplace, universal human emotions.
And I think part of the problem is that so many people these days are such dumb narcissists that they have no, they basically, they have no theory of mind for other people.
They have no concept of what being a person generally is like.
And you would think that they would because they are people themselves, but they assume that everything they experience is utterly unique and remarkable.
When meanwhile, none of it is.
None of it.
Their minds are these totally banal places where nothing unique or interesting or distinct ever happens.
And so if they have an inkling of a notion when they look in the mirror that, oh, I wish I was more attractive or whatever, they assume that no one has ever had that thought.
I'm the only one.
No one has ever suffered.
I am suffering unlike anyone has ever suffered.
No one can know my pain.
And then, of course, they go to therapists and they say all this nonsense and the therapists just encourage it rather than saying, oh, get over your, you're boring me to death.
Shut up.
You're boring me.
Come back when you got like an interesting problem that won't make me fall asleep.
They don't get that response and that's part of what happens.
And that explains why everyone's mad at Sidney Sweeney.
You ever wondered why elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers are using Armora colostrum?
It's because Armora colostrum packs over 400 natural nutrients that work at the cellular level to build muscle, speed recovery, and boost performance.
No artificial stuff, just pure fuel for whatever you're tackling.
Think of it as your body's natural defense system upgrade.
It strengthens your immune barriers throughout your entire body while supporting your gut wall system for better digestion, less bloating.
Plus, it helps your body absorb nutrients more effectively and keeps your metabolism running very smoothly.
You also notice the difference in your skin's radiance thanks to natural antioxidants and collagen-boosting compounds.
Plus, there's a reason lead athletes have been using colostrum for years.
It enhances endurance, speeds recovery, so you can bounce back faster.
Bottom line, Armora Colostrum gives your body comprehensive support to thrive naturally.
We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to armor.com slash walsh or enter walsh to get 30% off your first subscription order.
That's armra.com slash walsh.
If you're stressed out about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline or your books are a big mess, don't wait.
The IRS is cracking you down.
Penalties add up fast, 5% per month, up to 25% just for not filing.
But there's help.
Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spile before it gets worse.
They've helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or haven't filed in years.
Messy books, no problem.
They've seen it all and they know exactly how to clean it up.
With direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side, Tax Network USA knows how to win.
They'll get a free consultation and if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe.
More importantly, they'll help protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies.
So don't wait for the next IRS letter.
Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash walsh to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA.
Take the pressure off.
Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.
This month, Daily Wire Plus is giving you more than ever before streaming now.
Journey to the UFC, Joe Pfeiffer.
This is not a UFC promo.
It's a real American comeback story.
Starting Monday, answer the call of Jordan B. Peterson's new series where he returns to what started it all, answering your questions.
No celebrities, no headlines, just real people, real problems, and real answers.
Coming August 13th, The Pope and the Führer, the secret Vatican files.
Plus, this fall, Isabel Brown launches her brand new show in the Daily Wire, and trust us, the left will hate it.
Members, get it all.
First, ad-free, and unfiltered.
Go to dailywire.com and join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
If you know anything about Batman lore, which you probably shouldn't, then you know that he doesn't kill anyone.
Going back to the 1940s, it's been understood that Batman goes out of his way to preserve human life and animal life.
He won't indiscriminately open fire on criminals and innocent bystanders with heavy weaponry, even though it'd be a lot easier most of the time.
That's just not how Batman operates.
He sneaks in the shadows and takes the pacifist route.
The old animated series would use this restriction as a source of comic relief.
Instead of stabbing a shark that was about to eat him, for example, Batman asked Robin to toss him some shark-repellent bat spray, then boom pal, crisis averted.
He would also use batarangs, smoke bombs, various environmental hazards to dispatch his enemies.
And although it was really bad for the climate, most of it.
Yes, Tim Burton's Batman saw, you know, set henchmen on fire, blew people up, threw bad guys off tall buildings.
That's true, but every rule has an exception.
It's fair to say that in general, particularly in the animated shows, the writers had to get somewhat clever in order to avoid turning Batman into a killer.
They had to play with the laws of physics and basic logic a little bit, but they got it done.
That said, as impressive as these old Batman writers were, it's become clear that the new crop of Batman writers are going to have to be much, much more creative than their predecessors.
If the old Batman shows were the equivalent of Apollo 11, the one where we landed on the moon, then the new Batman show is going to be Apollo 13 levels of difficulty.
They'll have to fit that square peg into a round hole in the writer's room day in and day out.
They'll have to employ every imaginable trick in the book if they want to keep this whole no-kill thing going.
In the process, they'll have to rewrite history and constantly Insult the viewer's intelligence.
And indeed, it appears that that's exactly what they plan on doing.
So behold, the first trailer for the upcoming Batman feature film from Warner Brothers.
You've heard that wokeness is dead, but I think this trailer will show that reports of its demise may have been premature.
Watch this.
a wise man told me once fear can kill you or inspire you to action My son, when you take my place, it'll be your duty to always be ready for battle.
What are those?
My hands control the power of destiny, and what I want is gold.
Impossible.
We have strict rules in place that forbid this.
Rules are rules.
Slaughter them all!
They are dead!
Are you alright?
Where's your father?
I'm going to stop Cortez.
I want you to train me to become the greatest warrior that the world has ever known.
Even with all of your training, I still can't defeat them.
If only there was somebody who's stealthy.
Find that bat and that cat.
Put your trust in me.
Cortez must stand and face my vengeance.
Not vengeance, but to sacrifice.
You've been given a sacred mission.
Whether you accept it or not, it's the truth.
Tell us, War Leader, what are your orders?
Attack!
Yes, Batman is now an Aztec warrior.
Instead of Bruce Wayne, his name is Yohuli Koto.
I don't know.
And this time around, his father gets killed by Hernan Cortez, who acts as Too-Face in this rendition, having had half his face scarred during an assassination attempt of some kind.
The Joker is also a crazy Aztec priest, evidently.
So they're trying to create parallel versions of all the old characters.
But at this point, it's not clear exactly how far these parallels will go.
And that's an important question that these writers are going to have to resolve.
In the original comics, for example, Batman's father was a guy named Dr. Thomas Wayne.
He was a very renowned surgeon.
I'm telling you all this because I'm an expert on comic book lore.
And he made a lot of money, you know, that his surgeon did by cutting people up and fixing them.
So how exactly is that going to translate to this new film, Aztec-Batman Clash of Empires?
One can only speculate.
I obviously haven't seen the new film, but we can assume that the father of Yohali Kotol will also be a very famous surgeon.
That makes sense after all.
Of course, for the Aztecs, you know, being a famous surgeon meant that you took the heart out, but you didn't put it back in.
That's the slight but very important distinction that needs to be drawn.
There's no transplant.
There was no, they weren't fixing the heart.
They would take it out and that was it.
You know, you see, they used a knife to rip the hearts out of their out of their captives, including children, while they were still beating before they would eat them or burn them as an offering to the gods.
Other than that, it's pretty much a one-to-one parallel.
Batman's dad would replace the heart when he was done, and the Aztecs didn't bother with that.
So they get half credit at least, and probably good enough.
At this point, you're thinking that this is a terrible idea for a film and that no sane person should watch it or would watch it.
But I have to say two things.
First, you're obviously right.
But second, don't overlook the fact that there is a lot of other humor you can draw from this very ill-fated and stupid idea.
People are already drawing up storyboards for potential scenes, and here's one of them.
We'll put it on the screen.
In case you're listening to the audio podcast, the Aztec Joker says, that's right, Guano Man.
I'm holding the T.O. Pixie hostage, and you'll never find him.
And Batman responds, you monster, without him, we can't sacrifice enough children to make the sun rise.
And the Joker cackles and says, the children will leave and there's nothing you can do about it.
Now, it's just like that scene where the Joker is threatening to blow up the boats in the Nolan movies, basically.
A scene that I hated, by the way.
It's a terrible scene.
Terrible way to end the film.
I've already made that case.
But in this case, you have to kind of invert morality and it fits perfectly.
In any event, the bigger point is Aztec Batman is somehow going to avoid killing people, even though the Aztecs were constantly killing everyone, even their own children.
So how's that going to work exactly?
Presumably, they're going to recast the conquistadors as cartoon villains.
I mean, you can see that in the trailer, which has become something of a trend lately in third-rate media.
There's also currently a game in development where players can play as a lone Aztec warrior who somehow defeats the conquistadors.
And here's what that looks like.
*Sounds of fire*
*Sounds of fire*
So, the Aztecs might not have any armor or horses or guns or steel swords or lances, but they have this one guy sneaking around, eliminating all the conquistadors one by one.
It's obviously supposed to be a power fantasy intended for a mostly Mexican audience, but power fantasies like this don't Work when they're based on a very clear historical record, one in which the Aztecs were completely eliminated due to their, among other things, inadequate technology, inadequate, the fact that they were living 3,000 years in the past, and were replaced by a far more functional and in every way superior civilization.
So, either this game involves dying constantly as soon as you start playing, or it's a cruel reminder of how successful the Aztecs could have been if only they hadn't been evil, backwards, and bloodthirsty.
That's the main problem with Aztec Batman as well.
The reason the Batman comics and films work in general is that Batman restores order to society.
That's why he's easy to cheer for, catches the bank robbers and the murderers and guys in weird masks who detonate bombs in the middle of Heinz Field.
And in doing so, Batman allows people to go about their normal, productive lives.
By contrast, the Aztecs were the single largest impediment to human progress in the 15th century other than the plague.
They were cannibals.
They were murderers.
They murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people every year.
They didn't care about establishing stable governance or trade routes or technological advancement.
They were focused single-mindedly on expansion, and the Europeans expanded also.
But in this case, the expansion was so that they could acquire more humans to sacrifice.
That was the driving motivation was just more people that they could sacrifice to their fate gods.
And while the Aztecs were carving up their own children and dancing around like cavemen, Europeans were developing the printing press and building ships instead of canoes and creating great works of literature, achieving breakthroughs in mathematics and science.
Therefore, the only people who would root for an Aztec Batman are either completely ignorant of history or they're sociopaths who want the world to revert to barbarism.
You know, attacking Cortez by equating him with Too-Face is particularly idiotic.
Cortez was not a schizophrenic district attorney or anything close to one.
His story, like the story of the conquistadors, is fascinating and incredible and heroic.
These were some of the great heroes of history.
With virtually no military experience to speak of and at great personal risk, he went rogue in 1518 and unilaterally decided to secure the interior of Mexico for Spain.
He had only about 500 men in total, about a dozen horses, and he landed in Maya territory and ended up taking down the single most powerful Mesoamerican civilization, which is the Aztecs, which had a population of several million people.
And he did it with brains and he did it with force and he did it with diplomacy.
He aligned with the tribes the Aztecs had subjugated and carved up.
He won over slaves and natives of the Aztecs whom he converted to Christianity by the tens of thousands.
And then after introducing order and Christianity to Mexico, he built a major city and established a functioning and far more civilized colonial government.
This is a story that most people don't know very much about.
That's the only reason why anyone would even consider watching Aztec Batman.
They'd have to be completely unaware of basic historical facts, which is why we need to respond to this stuff, not just by commenting on it and criticizing it, although we should do that too.
And it's easy to do with something as stupid as Aztec Batman.
But everything I just outlined, the true history of Cortez and the conquistadors, which I talked about many times on this show, would make for a ridiculously entertaining show or series.
Why hasn't anyone made that yet?
Why aren't conservatives funding and creating that kind of content?
Why instead have we ceded this genre to Warner Brothers and this insulting, low-effort, slop piece of a Batman film?
Those are questions that hopefully will be answered very soon.
And along with the question of how exactly Warner Brothers plans to create an Aztec Batman who doesn't kill anyone, even Aztec children.
But until we get clarity on those points, as of today, Aztec Batman and everyone cheering the historical revisionism around Cortez and Coquistadors are today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today and this week.
Talk to you next week.
Have a great weekend.
godspeed Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morningwire.
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
