Ep. 1641 - As Migrants Terrorize Britain, Police Wage War On Catcalls
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, British police launch a sting operation to catch straight men who compliment women. As migrant criminals terrorize their country, this is what they’re focused on. Also, the media is very upset that the Trump Administration will be removing all of the anti-white propaganda from Smithsonian museum exhibits. And the Daily Beast accuses Ron DeSantis of committing mass murder against veterans. The one relevant detail here is that the veterans Ron DeSantis has executed were serial killers.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1641
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com
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:
BAERSkin Tactical Supply Co. - Text MATT to 36912 and get 60% off the best rain jacket on the market.
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://gcu.edu today.
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
Jeremy's Razors - Head to https://jeremysrazors.com today.
- - -
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
These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.
During Answer the Call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.
How do I balance all of this grief, responsibility?
How do you even repair this kind of damage?
My daughter, Michaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.
Everyone has their own destiny.
Everyone.
Thank you.
Today, the Matt Walsh show, British police launch a sting operation to catch straight men who compliment women as migrant criminals terrorize their country.
This is what they're focused on.
Also, the media is very upset that the Trump administration will be removing all the anti-white propaganda from Smithsonian Museum exhibits.
And the Daily Beast accuses Ron DeSantis of committing mass murder against veterans.
The one relevant detail here is that the veterans Ron DeSantis has executed were serial killers.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The Matt Wall Show.
Well, big thanks to Bearskin for sponsoring today's show.
You know, I've been telling you about their heavy storm rain jacket and hoodie combo that they sent me.
And I've been wearing this thing whenever it gets a little bit cold or whenever it's raining.
And this is the best three-in-one rain jacket I've ever owned.
I can say that with absolute sincerity.
We put some, put the pictures of me wearing it on the screen so you can see.
You can see the proof that I really do wear this thing.
I love these jackets.
I love bearskin jackets.
It folds down into its own stash pocket as well.
It takes up almost no space in your backpack or pocket.
It's a total game changer in heavy or light rain.
And if you like to do outdoor activities, you like to go hiking, if you like to go fishing as I do, anything at all, it's a great thing you can take with you, take it off.
It's not cumbersome.
It's not, you know, a big bulky jacket you got to carry around.
So it's convenient and it looks great.
At least I look great in it, I think.
This thing's fully waterproof.
That's because it's got fully taped seams, silicone-sealed zips and adjustable cuffs.
And the hood is designed to not allow any water near your face.
And it's not just any old jacket.
It's also got five waterproof pockets.
So all your gear stays dry, whether you're hiking, fishing, biking, getting caught in a storm on your morning commute.
This is one crucial rain jacket that you need.
And here's the best part.
It actually zips into the bearskin hoodie, turning both into a three-in-one all-weather system.
So your fleece stays warm and dry underneath and you stay comfortable and dry on the outside.
When you order your bearskin rain jacket, you'll get fast delivery and free shipping from within the U.S. To get yours for 60% off, just text Matt to 36912.
Even if you're busy right now, I'd recommend it.
It's my favorite jacket, M-A-T-T to 36912.
They'll send you a link so you can lock in your discount for later.
So if you go outdoors, rain or shine, text Matt to 36912 and get 60% off the most badass rain jacket on the market.
Around a decade ago, when viral videos were just starting to become commonplace, a woman uploaded a video entitled 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman.
Like many viral videos, it wasn't actually as spontaneous as it looked.
It was the brainchild of an anti-harassment organization by the name of Hollaback, along with an ad agency called Rob Bliss Creative.
And the premise, as the name of the video implies, is that a young white woman named Shoshana Roberts would walk around New York, all areas of Manhattan, they said, wearing jeans and a crew neck.
She wouldn't say anything to anyone.
In front of her, someone would be carrying a hidden camera, which would capture all of the misogynistic men who would inevitably catcall her.
So it was intended to be feminist propaganda, in other words.
And you might remember the video, but if not, just for context, here's some of it.
Watch.
That's not good.
Smile.
What's up, dude?
How you doing?
Hey, what's up, girl?
How you doing?
Somebody's acknowledging you.
She's in hate with me.
Really?
Oh, bless you.
Hey, baby.
Hey, beautiful.
How are you, Samar?
Have a nice evening.
Nice.
Hey, damn.
How beautiful.
God bless.
Sexy American Eagle.
Hello, good boy.
God bless.
Have a good day, alright?
How you doing?
Doing good.
$12,000 Here you go You want a tattoo?
Huh?
We can't be friends or nothing You want to speak?
Can I give you my number?
No?
Too much for you According to the caption on the video, to her horror, this woman was cat-called more than 100 times in just 10 hours.
And after releasing this piece of groundbreaking investigative journalism, the feminists who created it were convinced that they had a real winner on their hands.
It was being shared everywhere.
People were horrified by the plight of women in New York City.
But very quickly, the mood changed.
Leftists noticed that, inconveniently enough, pretty much every single cat caller in the video was black or Hispanic.
There was one white guy who said something like nice, although it wasn't even clear if he was talking to her or not.
In any event, he's clearly respectful.
He keeps things moving.
He simply compliments her, if that's what he did, and he continues walking.
By contrast, there were dozens of black and Hispanic cat callers in the video, and they went far beyond saying nice.
One of the black guys follows her down the street for five minutes, staring at her the entire time.
Another person, another person of color, as we say, tells her to say thank you more.
Another guy says, God bless you, mommy.
And you know what this means.
It means that this video was determined to be highly racist.
NPR and Slate, among many other left-wing publications, ran lengthy pieces on how problematic the video was.
The author Roxanne Gay, for example, wrote, The racial politics of the video are effed up.
Like, didn't she walk through any white neighborhoods?
Now, never mind the fact that she walked all over Manhattan, which the footage clearly shows.
As the hysteria grew, the organization that produced the video released a groveling and very confusing statement of apology, which threw their own video under the bus.
Quote, we regret the unintended racial bias in the editing of the video that overrepresents men of color.
We're committed to showing the complete picture.
It is our hope and intention this video will be a start of a series of a series to demonstrate that the type of harassment we're concerned about is directed toward women of all races and ethnicities and conducted by an equally diverse population of men.
Now, over on Reddit, the ad agency added, quote, we got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing or off camera.
Now, obviously, one of the biggest issues with this claim is that everything in the video was in passing or off camera.
So it doesn't make sense to claim that the white people were edited out for that reason.
Nor does it make any sense to state that in the future they'll be committed to demonstrating that cat callers are from a, quote, equally diverse population of men.
After all, they just captured video demonstrating via a recorded experiment that cat callers apparently are not, in fact, diverse.
Certainly not equally diverse.
So what's the basis for saying that in the future, they'll prove that white people are just as likely to cat call women, which by the way, this was years ago.
They never were able to prove that.
Now, they don't have any basis for saying that, of course, because it's not true.
Cat calling women to the point that they become uncomfortable, sort of like playing music loudly on a Bluetooth speaker at the park or committing armed robbery, is one of those behaviors that, from a statistical perspective, simply isn't perfectly distributed among various ethnic groups.
Even if you tried to stack the deck by conducting this experiment in a neighborhood that's like 100% white, it still wouldn't work.
In fact, it would probably only prove the opposite conclusion because we all know that a woman can walk through a predominantly white suburb, not just for 10 hours, but like for 10 years and maybe never get catcalled at all.
So that was the real lesson of 10 hours of walking in NYC As a woman, even though the ad agency would never admit it, they prove rather publicly that different demographic groups engage in cat calling at very different rates and in very different ways, also, it turns out.
And so, ever since the publication of this video, in the name of racial justice, leftists have mostly stopped talking about cat calling.
They've kind of left the topic alone.
But as we all know, every lesson of history must be relearned at some point.
It's sort of like the old maxim: never fight a land war in Asia.
Everyone agrees it's a bad idea, but eventually someone else tries again to disastrous results.
And indeed, that's the case with catcalling.
So, once again, leftists are trying to make a big deal out of catcalling.
They're back on the cat-calling bandwagon.
Specifically, in England, the Surrey Police Department recently sent undercover policewomen out on the streets in jogging clothes in a sting operation in an attempt to elicit cat calls.
Yes, this is real.
They actually did this.
And then, when the policewomen were cat-called, backup cars swoop in like a drug bust.
Watch.
These women aren't friends out for a run.
They're actually undercover police officers taking to the streets in Surrey as part of a new operation trying to stop people cat-calling and harassing female runners.
You get hulked at, they're staring, they're hanging out the window just to look at us, and it just is so, so, so prevalent.
And police teams are ready to intervene the moment the officers are beeped at, followed, or shouted at, pulling people over.
Those kind of behaviors may not be criminal offenses in themselves, but they still need to be addressed.
And of course, the people that are likely to commit those kind of behaviors, you know, they may then go on to commit more serious offenses.
Well, they've convinced me.
The police woman, a woman, is constantly being told by strangers that she's attractive, and that is a horrible, horrible thing.
It's hard to imagine anything worse than receiving unsolicited compliments, frankly.
And indeed, you can see the abject pain and horror in her voice as she's having to process all of this.
I mean, last week I upset some people by suggesting that female cops shouldn't be out on patrol because they lack the strength and other attributes necessary for that job.
But I guess I should revise my statement.
I mean, this is one job walking around and fishing for compliments that female cops are highly suited for.
And they do have apparently at least the strength and wherewithal to withstand the deep horrors of being complimented.
Unlike with men, you walk around in public your whole life as a man and you'll probably never ever be complimented randomly by a stranger.
You'll never hear a compliment ever from anyone.
And women, we're supposed to believe, hear compliments all the time.
And somehow the women have the harder deal there.
You're constantly being complimented, according to you.
Men are never complimented.
It's harder to always be complimented, really?
Anyway, it's enough to make you wonder what would happen if some police officers are assigned to this detail and they got no cat calls whatsoever.
Would they be giving interviews about how happy they are about the fact that no one in the entire city during their eight-hour shift bothered to compliment them?
Is that the conversation that would take place back at the station?
It seems doubtful, but we can't say.
Like, we're supposed to pretend that these undercover cops were going out looking for cat calls.
We're supposed to pretend that those women didn't want to be catcalled.
We're supposed to pretend that they wouldn't have been horrifically embarrassed and offended if they weren't catcalled at all.
We're supposed to pretend that.
At any event, in the video, they admit that cat calling isn't even criminal, which raises the obvious question of why the police are doing this.
They explain that in truth, they're just trying to wag their finger at people who catcall because cat calling is like a gateway drug to more criminal activity.
Apparently, people who catcall are more likely to commit murder and tax evasion and arson and so on.
One minute you're telling a woman she looks pretty, the next minute you're, you know, robbing a bank and shooting the bank teller.
I mean, it happens all the time.
It happens all the time.
But even if that's true, and there's not much evidence that it is, it still doesn't come close to justifying a police stop.
I mean, if the police are allowed to pull you over because you might commit a future crime, in their judgment, then, I mean, that's when you have a police state, which the left always pretends they're concerned about.
And of course, that's exactly what the UK has become.
They've become the kind of left-wing version of a police state.
But as it turns out, contrary to what's stated in the video, some people are indeed being arrested in the UK as part of this sting operation.
The Telegraph reports: quote: Surrey police said the approach was designed to protect women and girls in public places.
According to the force, the operation, which lasted a month, led to 18 arrests for offenses such as harassment, sexual assault, and theft.
Now, the implication, I guess, is that they picked up people with outstanding warrants for assault and theft.
Since there's no indication that these officers were actually attacked during their runs.
But what's notable about this report and every other report like it is that we don't have any information about the identities of the offenders.
They also don't explain what conduct constitutes harassment exactly.
Instead, they simply state that this was a one-month trial for a sting operation, which has now concluded.
So there was more transparency from a viral video produced by feminists a decade ago in New York City than the British police are willing to provide about their taxpayer-funded cat-calling bust.
Now, we can all draw the obvious conclusion here.
It's almost certain that this particular sting operation backfired, just like that viral video did.
They came up with this plan in order to entrap heterosexual white men who shout compliments at attractive women.
I mean, that was the point.
It was a way to get heterosexual white men in prison.
That's what they were trying to do.
That's the great crime that British police decided to spend their time on.
Something that isn't even a crime at all.
In fact, in many cases, it's not even morally objectionable if all you're saying is like is a polite compliment to somebody.
And yet, in their bid to criminalize heterosexuality and to lock up white men for non-crimes, the British police probably realized to their horror that the worst and most aggressive cat callers, the real menaces of the cat-calling community, were not white at all.
And therefore, this operation will end and it will never be resumed again.
We can all assume that that's probably what happened.
And it's not really a guess because this is how things work in Britain.
For many years, the British government concealed the systematic sexual abuse of children that was being committed right out in the open by foreign gangs in England and Wales.
According to one recent report prepared by UK government official Louise Casey, quote, we found that the ethnicity of perpetrators is shied away from and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators.
We found many examples of organizations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems.
With the protection of the government, so-called grooming gangs have operated with impunity in the UK.
The normal tactic that these gangs used, as Casey's report notes, was for men to target vulnerable adolescent children, often those in care or children with learning or physical disabilities.
Those children were then drugged, passed among various men, and transported via taxis through the country to other clients.
That's how these gangs operated.
The total number of victims is unknown because most of these perpetrators have never been caught, but a recent estimate suggests that a minimum of 700 children were victims of group-based child sexual exploitation in the UK in 2023 alone.
Roughly 1,400 children were sexually abused by men in the UK in the UK town of Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.
Again, it's just in one town.
In several cases, the police also participated in the sexual assault.
They also made it clear that they were extremely uninterested when victims came forward.
Watch.
One evening in 2006, a 12-year-old girl went into this police station.
She reported that she had been molested in a local graveyard.
The police officers here told her to sober up and come back later.
Police turned the girls away.
As she left, she was accosted by two further men who took her away in a car and raped her.
They gave her money for a bus fare and dropped her in the streets in this town in Greater Manchester.
She was picked up by another man.
Detectives were discouraged from investigating the crimes.
Many senior police officers were fearful of intervening because they may be branded racist.
Now, in response to the latest government report on this scandal, police told the BBC that they had, quote, a dedicated team of detectives working on this case who have worked diligently to explore all lines of inquiry.
That was the response Just a few weeks ago in July of this year.
So they're claiming it's a top priority for them.
And yet, just a couple hours away in Surrey, the police are busy trying to arrest cat callers.
They're chasing down men who honk at women, even though there's nothing criminal about that.
Not that we should really be surprised by this.
Sociopathic sting operations in the service of extremely dumb policies that happen to target native white citizens are becoming the norm in police departments all over the country and all over the Western world.
In fact, in Canada, they're rounding up people who try to hike in the woods.
We talked about that yesterday, handing out $30,000 fines.
In Australia, as we also have discussed, they've essentially outlawed prayer.
If you try to pray with a guy who thinks he's really a woman or vice versa, you could face a decade's worth of prison time.
In fact, parents can't even pray with their children under the law.
Now, there's no way to make sense of any of these crackdowns without recognizing that the governments of the West harbor a deep and abiding disdain for the native populations of their respective countries.
And these governments have realized that if they can't completely eliminate the police force and leave the population defenseless, then they can discredit the police at the very least.
They can turn law enforcement into a laughingstock, eliminate its legitimacy that way.
It's the same reason the police chief in D.C. can barely understand English, as we talked about yesterday.
In other words, the latest war on policing, incredibly enough, is one that the police themselves are participating in.
Police departments can either realize what's going on and refuse to participate in this raid, or they can continue to contribute to their downfall.
One extremely ill-advised sting operation at a time.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're 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, GCUs online, on campus, in 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 pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, Private Christian, Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
More than 90% of Americans don't get enough fruits, vegetables, and fiber in their diet.
We're all basically walking nutritional disasters.
That's where Balance of Nature supplements come in.
These aren't your typical synthetic vitamins with names you can't pronounce.
We're talking about 47 whole ingredients, 16 fruits, 15 vegetables plus spices and fibers, real stuff like wild blueberries, kale, turmeric, and mushrooms as well.
I've taken their fruits and veggies supplements for a while now.
And honestly, it's nice knowing I'm getting all that variety without having to turn my kitchen into a produce section, especially handy to have while traveling as well.
Plus, their fiber and spice blend is the only supplement on the market combining 12 spices with four whole fibers.
Look, I'm not saying this replaces eating actual vegetables, but when life gets crazy and your diet consists mainly of whatever doesn't require cooking, it's nice knowing that you'll still get healthy ingredients with balance of nature.
They're vegan, kosher, gluten-free, and made with zero artificial anything.
Just nature, doing what nature does best.
Go to bouncefoature.com.
Use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order's preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's bouncedwithnature.com, promo code Walsh.
It was announced recently that President Trump would be doing a review of the Smithsonian's museum exhibits to make sure that they, quote, celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.
Which, yes, that is what our publicly funded museum exhibits should do.
So that's very good.
And they talked about this on CNN last night.
And you could only imagine what their take was.
Jillian Michaels was a guest.
But she's the one person on the panel who did not see this move by Trump to be some great horrific act.
And so here's how that conversation went.
Listen.
Have you looked at some of the things you have to do?
Yeah, slavery.
Yeah, slavery was a bad thing to talk about.
Okay.
He's not whitewashing slavery.
So he's not.
He's not.
No.
He's not.
And you cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does.
But let's talk about the fact that when you meet anti-slavery, slavery in America was only less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves.
But it was a system of white.
You know how slavery is thousands of years old?
White people were sold.
Do you know who?
And we're the first race to try to get slavery.
Well, what's cultural?
I'm very surprised.
It's an extraordinary exercise in historical reason as well.
But I'm really surprised.
Do you realize that?
Jillian, I'm surprised that you're trying to litigate who was the beneficiary of slavery.
I'm not.
What I'm trying to tell you is in the context of American history, in the context of American history, what are you saying is incorrect by saying that it was white people oppressing every single thing is like, oh, no, no, no, this is all because white people bad.
And that's just not the truth.
Like, for example, every single exhibit, I have a list of every single one.
Like, people migrated from Cuba because white people bad.
Not because of past.
Yes, no, it's in there.
That's what I'm saying.
You don't actually know what's in there.
Do you know that when you walk in?
What exactly is that?
The first thing you see a job.
All right.
So Jillian is completely correct, of course.
The other people on the panel are looking at her dumbfounded.
And that's not a put-on, by the way.
They're not feigning ignorance.
They really just have never heard anything that she's saying.
The things that she's saying, they've never, when they're looking at her, stupefied, right?
They can't even, they can't process it.
Well, that's because they've actually never heard it before.
The level of sheer, sheer overwhelming historical ignorance of most, of most, quote, educated Americans these days just cannot be understated.
And that's not to let them off the hook or to excuse it, but the fact is that if you went to public school anytime over the past 40 years, your education was effectively worthless.
Your American history education was especially worthless.
And that's why you never even heard some of the most basic facts of the world's, you know, you've never heard a lot.
There's a lot of basic facts you never heard.
And you certainly didn't hear some of the most basic facts about one of the world's longest running and most prevalent institutions, which is slavery.
An institution so prevalent that when two sides of the world that had been out of contact with each other for thousands of years, when they finally met, they both had independently come up with this idea of forcing other people to work for free, right?
And that's one of the reasons why, and I always talk about it, I love reading about explorers and these stories of people who made first contact with tribes in far-flung corners of the world.
And I'm endlessly fascinated by these kinds of stories.
And one of the reasons is that I'm just, I think it's really interesting to see the universals, right?
You have all the differences.
There are a lot of very significant differences, of course.
But there are certain things that you've got these cultures that were separated thousands and thousands and thousands of years, had no contact with each other whatsoever.
They didn't even know each other existed.
And yet there are certain things that they, like certain conclusions that they had arrived at.
And, you know, it's the same thing when you read about Captain Cook or any European explorer stumbling upon tribes on small Pacific islands, or you hear about the British explorers who were exploring the interior of Africa, you know, in the 19th century, 18th and 19th century.
Tribes so isolated, you know, that they believed they were the only people on earth.
And then you look at the areas where they had reached kind of similar conclusions independently on a number of things.
And slavery is one of them, unfortunately.
And that's a sad statement.
It's a statement about human nature.
It's one of the, it's a troubling statement about human nature.
We have a fallen nature as human beings.
We know that as Christians.
So it shouldn't be a great shock.
But either way, one of the primary things that humans across the world had in common with each other for thousands of years is that they all had figured out that it's a lot easier to get stuff done if you force someone else to do it.
So it's like you have these two cultures and they're trying to communicate, trying to relate, not understanding each other.
And then they see each other slaves and they go, oh, you have those two?
Oh, that's so neat.
We're twins, slave twins.
That's actually a direct quote, by the way.
That's from one of Vasco da Gama's expeditions, I believe.
Anyway, so this was universal, okay?
And yet, universal, now there are a lot, we'll talk about it, there were a lot of differences in how these institutions were, how they operated.
And there were a lot of differences in how long these various different cultures had slavery.
But the universal is that everybody throughout the world for a long period of time had slavery.
And it was, and they got the slaves different ways.
Maybe they had the slave, but slavery is, okay, you have to work.
You have to perform some sort of labor for you, and we're not going to pay you.
And you don't have a choice.
Like that's slavery.
And it was everywhere.
It was everywhere.
Every single place on the globe where there were people had this.
And yet, somehow, this fact has escaped most of the educated people in our country today.
This really, I think, fascinating fact.
There's so much to be learned from that.
Right?
There's so much we can learn about human nature.
Important things that we should learn about human nature.
We could learn if we would just face this fact.
And yet we don't, because we have a lot of people today who don't even, they truly don't know you.
We have grown adults that went to, you know, went to universities and everything else, and they don't even know this.
And that's, again, that's not to let them off the hook.
Yes, their education failed them.
Their schools failed them.
But so did mine.
I went to public school and then I dropped out of community college and that's the extent of my formal education.
Yet I know these basic things about world history.
You probably know them as well.
So we know them.
And yet you have people that have like a decade of formal higher education under their belt and they've got degrees and masters and everything else and they don't even know this basic stuff.
And that's because if you know this stuff and if I know it, it's because we are curious about things and we like to keep learning.
And these people, the kinds of people on that CNN panel, are totally incurious, just absolutely empty-headed, incurious, jello-brained, ignoramuses who really just don't know anything.
They really don't know anything at all.
Their base of knowledge is as deep as a thimble.
They don't know anything at all.
And now that they've been told the truth, they certainly won't follow up.
Not going to follow up on it.
No, they'll climb back into their intellectual shells because these truths about slavery are very startling, very scary to them.
They threaten to dismantle the entire artifice of white guilt, the whole narrative.
I mean, the whole narrative of white guilt depends on the idea that white people are uniquely guilty for things like slavery.
It completely depends on that.
And if that is not the case, then the whole thing breaks down.
So they run away screaming.
They don't want to hear anymore.
They certainly don't want to hear that, you know, every predominantly white nation on earth had abolished slavery by the mid-1800s.
Meanwhile, slavery persisted.
Legal institutional slavery persisted in Arabic and African countries for another century, sometimes much longer.
Slavery was not fully criminalized across the African continent.
Okay, get this.
Slavery was not fully criminalized across the African continent until 2007.
Yes, 2007.
They were on like Season six of American Idol, when Africa finally got around to fully criminalizing slavery.
That's how recent it was.
Okay.
And it's the same in the Middle East.
And that's why I've said so many times: the only thing unique about the relationship between white Western society and slavery, the only thing unique about it is that those societies practiced it for a much, much, much shorter period of time and also a much less brutal form of it.
Because the other thing that you're going to hear about it, well, the other, yes, but slavery, chattel slavery in the United States was so much more brutal than what they did in other parts of the world.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
First of all, it's like as if chattel, there's something distinct.
Oh, well, this was chattel as opposed to what?
What do you think they were doing?
What do you think the Arabic slave traders were doing?
What do you think they were doing?
Well, you think that was a nice and gentle.
You think when they captured slaves and like dragged them across the Saharan desert, it was nice and friendly?
No, the Arabic slavers were, again, if you have even the smallest bit of knowledge about this, you know that slavery in Africa, slavery in Arabic countries was often much more brutal, much more.
Things like, you know, just routinely, as a matter of course, castrating male slaves.
This was a routine.
This was the custom.
This is what they did.
It wasn't like there were a few horrific cases of it.
This is just what they did.
And that's only the beginning of it.
So this was absolutely brutal.
And on top of that, it went on for so much longer.
It went on for 100 years longer.
And the only reason that it even stopped is because they were forced to stop.
It's because the European powers abolished slavery.
And then eventually they said, you know what?
We're not going to let anyone else do it.
We're done with this, guys.
We're moving on.
We're going to be civilized people now.
We're not doing slavery anymore.
And so slavery was abolished.
The slave trade, the Atlantic slave trade, it was abolished over the objections of Arabic and African countries who wanted it to continue.
And that is just a fact.
So, and as much as anyone on the left might want to say, well, that's got nothing to do with it.
That's irrelevant.
That's got everything to do with it.
Because your whole narrative is that white Americans are uniquely guilty for it.
That's your whole narrative.
And it's just not true.
And if the, you know, the history of slavery in Africa, if the history of slavery in the Middle East, if the history of slavery in Asia is irrelevant now because it was a long time ago, even though, you know, in Africa, it's like a long time ago was 2007.
But if it's irrelevant now because it's a long time ago, then it's then it's also irrelevant than the form of slavery practiced in the United States, which, by the way, only 1 to 2% of Americans ever own slaves.
Like the tiniest little fraction of Americans ever even owned slaves.
99% of Americans never had anything to do with it.
So.
And yet this is our, somehow, somehow, this thing, slavery wasn't, slavery was an institution in the United States of like America as a, United States of America as a country had slavery for like 90 years.
That's it.
And we're comparing this to countries that had it for 900 years or longer.
The whole thing's absurd.
Now, I've been seeing clips of Beto O'Rourke circulating for some reason, and he's on some kind of tour going around speaking, and he has a message for Democrats.
Here is that message.
Listen: We are in a basketball game right now, if you'll excuse the metaphor, where the refs have left the arena, and the other side is Just clobbering the punching us in the face, kicking us in the nuts.
And we're kind of throwing our hands up and we're asking the crowd, the people of America, hey, do you see what's going on here?
This is unfair.
This isn't the rules that we agreed to play by.
Well, who cares about the rules right now?
Punch back, kick back, dunk over their heads, and win some power.
So, this is Betto's strategy.
This is the strategy he wants Democrats to adopt.
The strategy is cussing a lot.
That's the strategy.
And listen, we should really take this guy seriously.
I mean, it would be smart for Democrats to heed his advice.
This guy is absolutely killer political instincts.
He's a really killer.
I mean, his political instincts are so killer that he's killed his own career with them.
I mean, this is a guy, this is a guy that knows how to, this is a real killer.
I mean, this is someone who has lost every race he's been in since 2019, which doesn't even sound that impressive because you think, well, since 2019, how many races could he have actually been in since 2019?
Well, the answer is three.
He's lost a Senate race, a presidential race, and a governor's race.
He won the triple crown of losing.
He's lost at every level of government.
Now we just need him to lose a mayor's race and then a school board race and then a potato sack race.
And it will have finally completed the ultimate journey of losing.
The ultimate loser's journey will have finally been completed by Betto O'Rourke.
And I believe in him.
I think he can do it.
He will have fulfilled his destiny as America's greatest loser, history's greatest loser.
So that's pretty inspiring.
And as for his advice here, obviously the suggestion that Democrats are too worried about the rules is just asinine.
And this is the thing you hear now from Democrats all the time.
That they imagine that their problem is that they are too polite and too concerned with following the rules and the norms and abiding by political tradition.
Meanwhile, these are the people who tried to stop Trump from becoming president by putting him in prison.
They conjured fake criminal charges against a former president and a presidential candidate and tried to throw him in prison to stop him from winning.
So these are not people who are worried about the rules.
These are not people who need a lesson in how to fight dirty.
They get it.
I mean, these are the dirtiest fighters we've ever seen in politics in this country anyway.
And we could say that without hyperbole because they have done things that no one else has ever done.
To include, again, throwing a former president in prison or trying to because you don't like him and you're worried about his continued political influence or continued political campaigns.
No one had ever done that before.
And so, yeah, I think that they, I think they get the message.
But putting that aside, what Betto really wants is for us to be impressed with how much he's cussing.
I mean, he threw four cuss words into a 30-second soundbite.
So he's like a fifth grader who just learned new cuss words and he's so excited to go to go to school and say them in front of his friends.
And a lot of Democrats are trying this now.
They're trying to be looser, more crude, more vulgar.
They're throwing in F-bombs all the time.
And why are they doing this?
Well, obviously, this is their attempt to kind of ape Donald Trump and to try to capture some of Donald Trump's appeal and energy.
But it never works.
It has never worked.
It will never work.
Trump's opponents have been trying this for 10 years.
This is not new.
Republicans tried it all the way back in the Republican primaries in 2015.
We all remember that.
They went from lecturing Trump for his vulgarity to trying to imitate it.
We all remember that very pathetic spectacle of Republican candidates in the primary of 2015 doing this sudden switch because they tried the finger wagging and that didn't work.
And so then they tried to act like him and start using this kind of language he used and it didn't work.
It never works.
It can't work.
And the reason that it can't work is very simple.
Because the appealing thing about Trump's style, and it's amazing to me that Democrats are so clueless that they have yet to figure this out.
I mean, we're 10 years into this.
We are 10 years into the Trump era and they have not figured this out.
The thing that is appealing about Trump's style is not that he's vulgar.
It's not that he's crude or crass.
It's not any of that.
It's that he's authentic.
Okay, that's the number one, far and away, number one appeal of Trump's personality is that he's authentic.
It's authenticity.
That's what people respect about it.
And he's just being himself.
And so when he uses vulgar words or when he, you know, makes fun of people and he does what he does that we've all used, you're all used to seeing over the last 10 years.
People are not, it's not like, oh my gosh, he said a cuss word.
That's so impressive.
It's just that, oh, this guy's real.
Like, this is how he is.
This is his, this, and, and, and you, you just know that this is how he is on stage.
And if you met him in person, he'd be exactly the same way.
And everyone that's ever met him or knows him, everyone has said that.
It's like, this is the same guy, no matter where, no matter what context you meet him, he's always just the same guy.
And that is the appeal.
And that's why this, all of these little tricks by Democrats, all of these rebrands, none of it will ever work because it's inauthentic.
It's not real.
And when Betto Rourke gets up there and starts talking about, hey, F the rules, man, let's kick their ass, right?
Right, folks?
You hear me?
I just said the F word.
You hear that?
But so when Betto Rourke does it, it's not authentic.
It's cringe.
It's embarrassing.
Okay.
It is, it's the, it's like the political equivalent of the Christian youth pastor with a backwards hat making pop culture references from nine years ago.
It's, it's, it's as cringe as that.
And why is that cringe?
Because it's not authentic.
It's not who you really are.
And that's the problem.
So it's just not going to work.
All right.
Finally, this came across my feed.
It's an article in MarketWatch titled, Did Baby Boomers Really Have It Easier Than Millennials?
And it dissects this long-running feud, which seems to have really found new life over the past several weeks on social media, this competition between generations to establish who had a more difficult time.
And now that competition is especially intense among Gen Z versus boomers.
Every day on X, I see another post about how Gen Z has it so much worse.
And sometimes you see the opposite claim.
I just saw a kind of a viral post of a boomer woman who was saying the opposite, that they worked really hard and they had it a lot harder.
And so there's just this constant, this constant competition going on.
This competition, this unending discussion about the war of the generations, right?
And I was thinking about this and I have a few thoughts about it.
First of all, there's no question that the younger generations today do have a harder time of it by a number of really important metrics.
And this is measurable.
It's measurable, right?
Housing is more expensive.
Everything is more expensive.
Inflation is ridiculous.
Young people today have to compete in a labor market flooded with third world slave labor and now also AI.
And these are problems that boomers didn't face.
Not only did they not face it, but problems that they created.
I mean, they're the ones who let the immigrant invasion happen.
They facilitated it, welcomed it, created it.
It was not just letting it happen, but this was their handiwork, largely, generationally speaking.
And that's just true.
Now, on the other hand, it's also true that every living generation of Americans today have it easier.
And this is one of the, like, this might be the key point.
Every time I see this, this competition, this is the point that I think everyone needs to understand.
Every generation of Americans that are living today have it easier, much, much easier than the vast majority of humans that have ever lived or who currently live on the globe.
So you can make the argument if you're Gen Z that you have it harder than the baby boomers did at your age.
And I think that's true.
I do.
I do think that that is true.
But there's a reason why you're using the baby boomers and no one, like you're specifically using the baby boomers in the United States of America.
That is what you're using.
Because if you expand the comparison any more than that, I mean, if you pull back, right, if you widen the lens any more, then all of a sudden it all starts breaking down.
Because then you're going to find that the world is full of people who would kill to have your life.
And that again is the case historically.
And you might say that this undeniable fact of life doesn't make your personal challenges any easier, which sure, it doesn't.
But if we're doing the comparison game, then you have to expand the scope.
It's only fair.
I mean, either we're going to just say, look, it doesn't matter to compare it.
It's not a competition.
Who has it harder?
Who doesn't?
Let's just live your life.
Okay.
No matter if anyone has it easier or harder than you, it doesn't do anything for you one way or another.
Live your life.
And so that's one approach.
And we could just do that.
I prefer that.
But if you're going to get into this obsessive game of they had it easier, well, once you start doing that, okay, well, now you've opened, now we've opened up the comparison conversation.
And then you're going to quickly find that, yeah, baby boomers had an end were in an enviable position in relation to you, but you are, we're all in a very enviable position in relation to billions and billions and billions of people.
And I think that's one of the things that gets lost.
And that just brings me to what I think is the main point, which is that, and I know I talk about the generational, I get into the generational warfare sometimes too.
I know that I'm guilty of that.
I think we do have to face the horrific mistakes that baby boomers made.
And they did make a lot of, when I say mistake, it makes it sound like it was done accidentally, but the horrifically bad decisions that were made in large part by baby boomers, I think we have to face that.
We're dealing with it right now.
We've got to learn the lessons of history.
So some of that is necessary.
But the incessant generational warfare, I think the problem is that, especially if you're a young person, especially if you're a young person just starting out in life and you're sitting around just like obsessing over, I wish it was easier.
I wish, I wish I was born in 1953.
It'd be so much easier.
Whether that's true or not, to live your life that way and to obsess over that is just, it will kill.
It's death.
It will kill your potential.
Once you start stacking excuses, then you have killed your potential.
You've killed your own chance at success.
Because you could still succeed in life, but you've killed it.
Once you start obsessing over the excuses and just sort of collecting them, which is what a lot of people do.
They start collecting excuses and they have them in their pocket, ready to pull out at any moment.
And this is, I truly believe this is the number one dividing line, the thing that separates successful people from unsuccessful people ultimately.
Success by however you measure it, in whatever your walk of life, whatever your profession, whatever field, whatever it is.
But the thing that separates successful from unsuccessful is that the unsuccessful people collect excuses.
The unsuccessful people, when you ask them, when it comes to their own failures or the things that aren't working out, they've got 20 excuses ready to go.
They've got them all rehearsed.
They have them on a list in their brain and they just run through them constantly.
And successful people don't do that.
It's not because they don't have excuses.
It's not because they don't have difficult lives.
A lot of times these are people that have much more difficult lives, but they don't sit around thinking about excuses.
Like they just won't take no for an answer.
They're ambitious.
They know what they want in life.
They're going to go chase it.
And they will not take no.
They don't want excuses.
They're not collecting excuses in their pocket.
They're dumping the excuses out and throwing them on the ground.
They don't want them.
And that's the number one dividing line, I believe.
You may have noticed, but I don't shave much.
I do, however, have thoughts about men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men.
And so does Jeremy's Razors.
When Harry's pulled their advertising from the Daily Wire for saying that boys are boys and girls are girls, we launched Jeremy's Razors to be the sole company in the industry that isn't afraid of biological reality.
Right now, you could try Jeremy's Razors for just $7.99.
You heard that right?
Just $7.99.
That's their lowest price ever.
Look, you know, I don't recommend shaving, but if I did, it would be with Jeremy's Razors.
Go to jeremy'srazors.com today, join the fight against radical gender ideology.
Don't tell them I sent you.
That's jeremy'srazors.com.
It's summer's last stand.
Days are getting shorter, grills are getting cold, and coffee shops are already trying to seasonally gaslight you with pumpkin spice.
But you need to be first in line for everything coming to Daily Wire Plus before the fall chaos hits.
Stream the brand new The Pope and the Führer, the secret Vatican files of World War II.
Michael Knowles just cracked open 80 years of Vatican secrets that the history books forgot to mention.
This fall, the Isabel Brown show premieres.
It's a new voice for a new generation.
Plus, the decade of the Daily Wire anniversary show, celebrating 10 years of upsetting all the right people.
You get all that, plus news from the most trusted voices of conservative media and unfiltered opinions you won't find anywhere else.
Summer ends, Freedom Doesn't get 40% off a new annual Daily Wire Plus membership right now.
Join millions just like you at DailyWirePlus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Here's something you might not know about Jeffrey Dahmer, the cannibal serial killer who dismembered more than a dozen people.
He was actually a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
He enlisted in the Army back in 1979.
And that same year, he was deployed as a combat medic to West Germany.
A couple years later, his performance deteriorated and he received an honorable discharge.
And believe it or not, Dahmer wasn't the only notorious serial killer who served in the military.
David Berkowitz, otherwise known as the son of Sam, killed six people and injured 11 others.
And guess what?
He served in an Army Infantry Division in South Korea as well as Fort Knox.
Now, if you're a normal person hearing these little bits of random trivia, you might say, so what?
Both Dahmer and Berkowitz committed some of the most horrible crimes imaginable.
Therefore, they deserve the maximum punishment under the law for what they did.
The fact that they served in the military has no bearing whatsoever on anything.
And it certainly doesn't mean that they were entitled to a lesser sentence or any kind of sympathy.
And if that's your position, congratulations.
It's safe to say that you don't work at the media outlet known as the Daily Beast, which is easily one of the worst publications on the internet.
And you see, in their infinite wisdom, the Daily Beast has just published a lengthy article written by a breaking news intern, which makes the case that, in fact, it's wrong for murderers to face justice as long as they served in the U.S. military.
Put another way, the Daily Beast, a very left-wing publication that ordinarily does not support the U.S. Armed Forces in any way, has now decided that serving the military should make you immune from the death penalty no matter what crime you committed.
That's what they're going with.
We'll start with the headline.
Here it is: quote, veterans beg Ron DeSantis to stop killing them.
Yes, according to this headline, Ron DeSantis is murdering veterans.
You're obviously meant to imagine Ron DeSantis cruising around the streets of Miami, stopping off at VA hospitals and going American psycho on all the patients inside.
If you want more specifics on how exactly Ron DeSantis is accomplishing this particular task, you have to read the subheadline of the article, which states, quote, Ron DeSantis, who is a veteran himself, has overseen the executions of five vets this year alone.
Now, already this sounds pretty bad.
After all, how can the governor of a state possibly oversee the execution of military veterans?
It's unthinkable.
Serving in the military means you can't be executed.
Everyone knows that.
But somehow in the state of Florida, it's happening.
Here's the meat of the article, such as it is: quote, Ron DeSantis is under fire for turning against his fellow service members and letting executioners slaughter five veterans this year alone.
The governor who served in the U.S. Navy as a commission officer from 2004 to 2010 has called Florida the most veteran-friendly state in the nation.
But during his reign, nine people have been executed, including five veterans.
Florida ministers, executions by lethal injection or electric chair at the execution chamber located at Florida State Prison.
Close quote.
So to restate, Ron DeSantis is under fire for letting executioners slaughter five veterans this year alone.
And he claims his state is friendly to veterans, but actually it's more like a house of horrors.
Veterans walk into Florida excited about the whole no-income tax thing, and then Ron DeSantis springs his saw trap on them, apparently.
But it gets worse.
The article continues, quote: Nearly 30 veterans are sitting on death row waiting for execution, including 67-year-old Kale Bates, who was set to be killed on August 19th.
During DeSantis' term, five veterans have been executed: Bobby Joe Long, Dwayne Owen, Edward James, Jeffrey Hutchinson, and Edward Zark Sarg Zakruski.
Let's go with.
Bates is set to become the 10th on August 19th, followed by Curtis Wyndham on August 28th.
Hutchinson, a 62-year-old veteran with severe mental problems, was executed in May for the murders of his girlfriend and her three children.
Close quote.
Now, the article doesn't provide any additional context on any of these people.
We're just told that they're veterans and that one of them was mentally ill.
So I'll do the Daily Beast job for them.
Bobby Joe Long sexually assaulted and killed nearly a dozen women in Florida in 1984.
So he's a serial killer.
He confessed and was convicted of eight murders.
Dwayne Owens sexually assaulted and stabbed a 14-year-old child to death before sexually assaulting and beating a 38-year-old mom, a 38-year-old to death a couple of months later.
Edward James stole a car and murdered an eight-year-old child and her 58-year-old grandmother after he got high on LSD and drank 24 beers.
Jeffrey Hutchinson murdered his living girlfriend and her three children, ages nine, seven, and four.
Edward Zarkuski killed his wife with a machete after she demanded a divorce after, and then he also killed his seven-year-old son and five-year-old daughter.
He lured his children into the bathroom one by one by saying he wanted to brush their teeth, and then he murdered them.
So these are murderers.
These are absolute ghouls.
I mean, the dregs of human society.
Monsters that can barely be called human, which the Daily Beast is defending as a very incoherent and demented way of defaming Ron DeSantis.
They're saying that all these people deserve lighter sentences solely because they served in the military at one point.
This is the editorial position that the outlet has taken.
Now, of course, the cowards over at Daily Beast won't admit that.
They'll claim they're just reporting on the utterly insane suggestion that other people are making.
Specifically, the article goes on to cite a letter supposedly written by around 100 alleged veterans, which states, quote, We could never be a veteran-friendly state when our leader is signing off on the deaths on their desks at the hands of the state.
The military instills in all of us an unbreakable code of honor, leave no one behind.
That obligation does not end at the end of one's duty.
To execute a veteran who was broken by war and left without adequate care is not justice.
It is a failure of duty.
It is the final abandonment.
So we're abandoning serial killers and men who have committed mass slaughter of children.
Now, if you're an actual news organization and you receive a demented letter like this one, you might choose to investigate every single name on the list to see what's wrong with them or what their goals might be.
You'd also want to make sure that they're actually who they say they are.
If you pull up the letter they refer to, you won't find any signatures.
You'll just see a list of names.
And here's what it looks like.
There's no letterhead or signature at all.
It's just a list of names without any verification whatsoever.
Anyone could come up with a document like this.
Did the Daily Beast ask Airman First Class Norbert Burlinghaus if he agrees that Ron DeSantis shouldn't execute serial killers?
Did anyone ask him?
Seems doubtful.
What about electronics technician third class Garrett Baker Smith, who also has no online footprint whatsoever?
Why did he, out of the blue, sign on to this letter?
Now, we all know the Daily Beast's breaking news intern didn't bother to look into any of these questions.
Instead, the Daily Beast simply endorsed this letter from quote-unquote veterans, if that's what they actually are, while leaving out any and all context about the people who were executed as a way of portraying Ron DeSantis as some kind of mass murderer.
Now, to their credit, Ron DeSantis' press office sent the Daily Beast a very succinct reply to this ridiculous article, which really gets at the heart of the matter.
Here's how the outlet reported on their statement, quote, when reached for comment, DeSantis' communications director, Alex LaFrancone, told the Daily Beast after publication, a simple trick to avoid execution in Florida is to not murder people.
That's pretty straightforward advice.
Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can understand it pretty well.
But at the Daily Beast, all bets are off.
And to give you an idea of how utterly moronic these people are, just a few years ago, a Daily Beast contributing editor, someone whose entire job is to watch conservatives on television, published this tweet.
It reads, quote, it appears that Tucker's producers added googly eyes to AOC in this image.
They attached a picture of Alexandria Oqueso-Cortez's face.
But alas, no googly eyes were added.
It was just AOC's face.
In other words, the Daily Beast, in their attempt to smear conservatives, managed to admit that, in their opinion, AOC looks like she has googly eyes from the party store glued onto her face.
Now, I could spend the next five years going through every example of the Daily Beast discrediting itself, but after this hit piece on Rhyno DeSantis, I really don't have to.
This is a publication that serves only to degrade discourse in this country and to insult the intelligence of all 10 of their readers day in and day out.
With their latest hit piece from their breaking news intern, the Daily Beast has gone a step further and insulted the victims of some of the most heinous serial killers who have ever lived.
And for that reason, among many others, the Daily Beast, along with anyone who's supposedly writing letters defending mass murderers because they happen to serve in the military at some point, is today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you on Monday.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
*Dramatic Music*
Today on the Ben Shapiro show, New Polling shows young Democrats boosting Zoran Mamdani to victory.
And we examine just why.
President Trump continues his moves to take control of DC's crime problem, and President Trump seeks to influence the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center.
