The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1020 - The Insane Racial Double Standards That Govern Our Society

Episode Date: September 13, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left celebrates when white characters in films and tv shows are turned black, but reacts with outrage in the reverse. This is yet another example of the blatant racial double standards that govern our society. And personally I've had enough of them. Also, CNN shocks the world by sort of acknowledging that the BYU racism story was a hoax. Though the race hustler on ESPN are sticking with their story, facts be damned. Dr. Oz comes out in favor of the federal government redefining marriage. And Brian Stelter loses his job at CNN only to immediately end up on the staff at Harvard. What does this tell us about the institutions that run our country? Quite a lot, actually.    Watch the brand new DailyWire+ show CANDACE OWENS on DailyWire+, or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu     - - -  Today’s Sponsors: American Financing empowers families with personalized mortgage solutions. From lower rates to shorter terms, and even debt consolidation! Call American Financing for a free mortgage review at [phone] os visit AmericanFinancing.net   - - - 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  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left celebrates when white characters and films and TV shows are turned black, but reacts with outrage in the reverse. This is yet another example of the blatant racial double standards that govern our society. And personally, I've had enough of them. We'll talk about it. Also, CNN shocks the world by sort of acknowledging that the BYU racism story was a hoax, though the race baiters over on ESPN are sticking with their story. Facts be damned. Dr. Oz comes out in favor of the federal government redefining marriage. And Brian Stelter loses his job at CNN only to immediately.

immediately end up on the staff at Harvard. What does this tell us about the institutions that run our country? Quite a lot, actually. We'll talk about all that. And more today on the Matt Wall Show. Inflation is making a lot of us spend more than we used to on gas, groceries, really just about everything. That can be detrimental to your household budget, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just give our friends at American financing a call for a free mortgage review. I can't stress this enough. Your home is an investment tool, and it continues to appreciate at record levels. You can access cash from that investment at competitive rates as long as you take action soon. The Fed is meeting this month and they're expected to raise rates again, so don't miss your opportunity and don't miss your chance to save some money and do what you can to help your own finances.

You're not getting a lot of help from the administration, obviously. You can get a great deal in as little as 10 days by calling American finance and get a free mortgage review from a salary-based mortgage consultant. There's no pressure, no obligation, no upfront or hidden fees, just a simple conversation around custom loans that can fit your budget better. Call 866-569-469-47-11. Or visit Americanfinancing.net. NMLS-182-334, NMLS Consumer Access.org. Back in August, it was announced that the actor James Franco had been cast to play Fidel Castro in an upcoming film. As Axios reported at the time, the casting decision sparked anger. Many on the left accused Franco of participating in whitewashing. The Washington

Post ran an article claiming that the incident highlights the alleged ongoing problem of Latino exclusion in Hollywood. Fellow actor John Liguizamo blasted the casting as appropriation, called for a boycott. Many others agree that Franco should not be allowed to appropriate a brutal dictator from Latinos. He may be a mass-murdering psychopath, but he's their mass-murdering psychopath, damn it. It didn't matter that Franco actually looks a lot like Fidel Castro. It also didn't matter that Franco and Castro are not that far apart ethnically. Castro's father was from Spain, while Franco's grandfather is from Portugal. It also, of course, didn't matter that the job of an actor is to act, that it is to pretend to be

something that you are not. None of that matters in such cases. All that matters is that Franco is white, and white people must stay in their acting lane. Now, by the way, John Liguizamo was born in Colombia, but his first prominent role in Hollywood was portraying the Nintendo character Luigi, who is an Italian plumber, according to the Nintendo Canon. That doesn't matter either, though, as we'll cover in a moment. Now, over the years, there have been many outrages and controversy stemming from instances

of alleged whitewashing. The anger is no less palpable when the role in question is a fictional character. In 2017, a British actor was forced to drop out of a Hellboy film because the character he was supposed to play was Japanese in the original comic. A few years before that, Emma Stone's casting as an Asian woman in a romantic comedy provoked so much wrath from the left that the director of the film had to issue a written apology for the film he directed. And Stone herself has since apologized for her participation in the project.

That same year, Rooney Mara had to grovel and beg for forgiveness after starring as Tiger Lily in a Peter Pan adaptation. The left declared that the fictional character is supposed to be Native American. Rooney Mar is not. And she agreed, and now she says that she's haunted by guilt because of portraying that character in the film. The outrage extends into the cartoon realm as well, where last year, Hank Azaria famously apologized and announced that he was stepping away from his role as a poo in the Simpsons on the basis that he shouldn't be voicing a character of Indian descent. In fact, the show's

producers have since said that no white voice actors will be used for any characters from other ethnic backgrounds from now on. The determination to root out all cases of whitewashing, quote, unquote, or suspected whitewashing or potential whitewashing is so absolute that the live-action remake of Aladdin in 2019 came under fire because the brown actress who played Jasmine was not brown enough. And she wasn't white, but she appeared to be kind of white adjacent, and that was very disturbing. A screen ran article at the time said that Aladdin's whitewashing had damaged its box office potential. The writer apparently convinced that the average moviegoer shares her race-obsessed neurosis.

Now, it may then come as a surprise, to the most naive among us, anyway, that the very same media, which complains bitterly about whites in traditionally non-white roles, and the very same leftists who treat the whitening of non-white characters as literal genocide, and all the people who've taken this issue so seriously as to cause many white Hollywood actors to drop out of films and fall to their knees an apology, would all this week be so excited about the release of the first trailer for Disney's upcoming Little Mermaid live-action copy and paste job? Now, everything is mostly the same in the remake, as always. It's like shot for shot exactly this.

Except that the Little Mermaid herself, a pale redhead in the cartoon version, has been recast as a black woman, though still with red hair somehow. This is part of a growing trend. As the anger about whitewashing increases, so in equal proportion does the demand for what we must in the reverse call blackwashing. A viral post on Twitter declares rapturously, a black Cinderella, a black bell on Broadway, a black Cinderella on Broadway, and now a black Ariel. The black girls are truly winning. Much to the left's approval, the black girls are winning, quote unquote, in historical retellings, too. Last year, a black woman was cast as Anne Boleyn, the 16th,

century Queen of England in an upcoming miniseries. Netflix currently features a show starring a black woman as a Viking warrior. Many other examples come to mind, too many to count. They even fired Jake from State Farm and replaced him with a black version. And then there are the examples yet to be. For instance, there's still a major push to find somebody other than a white man to fill James Bond's shoes in the next installment. Now, in all of these cases, two things are guaranteed.

or actually more than two, a few things. When a black actor plays a traditionally white role, portraying either a fictional character or a historical figure, the media, the left, and Hollywood itself, will celebrate the move as pioneering and courageous and important, along with all the other requisite superlatives. The other guarantee is that any criticism of the casting decision, even and especially criticism,

that simply adopts the same logic as the left applies to so-called white, washing will be slammed as racist. The Daily Beast Today has an article documenting what it calls the racist backlash to the Black Little Mermaid declaring this backlash to be out of control. The racism is out of control, they say. And you click on the article. And in the article, they provide a few tweets from random accounts complaining that the underwater scenes don't look realistic. So the Daily Beast article about racist backlash contains no racist backlash or even backlash that vaguely mentions race. They simply determine that the criticism of the film's bad CGI is really racially motivated.

It's a dog whistle, as they like to say. That's the third guarantee that when a film casts a black actor in a white role, any criticism of the film, any criticism, even criticism makes no mention of race, is racist, which is why you can't criticize the new Lord of the Rings series or the Game of Thrones prequel without revealing yourself to be a member of the KKK. In such situation, the left also likes to employ its favorite sleight of hand trick that we talk about all the time on this show. This is something that they will surely use in response to this very monologue you're listening to right now when Media Matters clips it and posts it to Twitter with a caption like Daily Wirehost launches into racist tirade about Black Little Mermaid. Guaranteed they're going to do that.

And when they do, the left is going to respond to it by scoffing and saying, well, why do you care so much? It's just a movie about a mermaid. It's just a mini-series about the Queen of England. It's just a show about a Viking. It's just entertainment. Why are you even talking about this? Aren't there more important issues? But of course, they themselves have made exceedingly clear that racial accuracy in entertainment, whether fictional or historical, is extremely important to them.

They've been saying this for years. That's why they go into spasms of rage whenever a character is judged not black or brown enough. It's why they would literally riot and start killing people if somebody rebooted Tyler Perry's Medea series except with Bob Odinger, dressed in drag for the title role. A similar reaction would be expected if the live action remake of The Princess and the Frog featured like Kristen Stewart as Tatiana. And of course, a biopic about, say, Frederick Douglass with Tom Hanks as the lead would result. result in entire cities burning down in flames. All of these things would be called, as less egregious examples have been called, black erasure. So does that not mean by their own categorization that the reverse is white erasure?

And if they can complain about black erasure, then why can't we complain about white erasure? Any kind of erasure on racial grounds sounds bad to me. Well, no, they say. It's different in the reverse. it's just different. It always is, right? And that's why all of this matters. Now, on its own, in a vacuum, the race of an actor portraying a fictional character or even a historical character doesn't matter. Makes no difference, right? That's exactly the point that many of us have insisted on for years when the left started making this an issue. For years, we said it's not an issue, who cares? And there was a time when that was the case. It wasn't an issue. Nobody really cared about it.

Morgan Freeman's character in Shawshank Redemption is actually supposed to be an Irish guy with red hair. That's why the character is named Red. But nobody complained because Freeman was brilliant in the role. He single-handedly made that film, the classic that it is. And also back in the early 90s, people weren't obsessing as much about the racial dynamics in Hollywood films. There was nothing pointed or political about giving the role to Freeman. Contrary to now, when the diversification, quote-unquote, of a story is always very clearly pointed. and political.

Back then, he was just the best man for the job. Everyone loves his character now, and that's all it needs to be said. Many of us have clung to that attitude today, which, again, in a vacuum, makes sense. But we're not in a vacuum. Unfortunately, we live now in a culture governed by blatant racial double standards. The rightness or wrongness of an act, the seriousness or uns seriousness of an issue, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a complaint, even the mutability or immutability of a cartoon character's race are all judged on racial grounds. Based on skin color, we are told what our opinions are allowed

to be and what sorts of things we are allowed to care about. And if you're white, then there's going to be a whole list of things that every other group of people can care about but which you would be insane, stupid, petty, and racist to care about yourself. Entire lists of priorities which due to your skin pigmentation are off limits for you. You are not allowed to care about it, they say. We're supposed to just accept a rule which says, you know, having a white actor play Black Panther is horribly racist, but it's also horribly racist to complain about a black actor playing The Little Mermaid. But that rule is indefensible and hypocritical in the extreme. And we all know it. And yet we're supposed to just acquiesce to it. That's what all this is about

in the end. It's not about the movies. I don't even watch any of these movies. On their own, I don't care about them. I do care about the racial double standard, which we are being conditioned to accept. Because another word for racial double standard is racism. This is all racist. And that's why it matters. Now let's get to our five headlines. With the ever-increasing numbers of makes and models, it's impossible for a traditional chain storefront to stock all the parts you need. Why wait while the man at the counter orders parts for your car from the brand that his warehouse happens to carry? You don't need to do that. You have a computer in your pocket. Just go to rockado.com. Rockotto.com has been in the

auto parts business for 20 years. Family-owned, their goal is to make auto parts available and affordable to keep you safe on the road. They not only have the auto parts you need, but they'll give you a selection of trusted name brands to choose from. You can pick brakes that match how you use your vehicle for towing, racing, or just community to work, whatever it is. They've got it for you. The rock auto.com catalog is remarkably easy to navigate.

Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands and specifications and prices you prefer. The prices make it affordable for customers to keep their cars safe on the road. There's an amazing selection, reliably low prices. All the parts your car will ever need. Go to Rock Auto. Go to rock auto.com. Right now, get breaks, shocks, carpets, wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers, lugnuts, or any other part you need at rockado.com. As always, be sure to write Walsh in their

how did you hear about us, box so they know that I send you. Well, I believe in giving credit where it's due, even on the rare once in a century occasion when it's due to the mainstream media. And some are saying that this is just such an occasion. Some are saying that this, that this right now is the time when we should give some credit to the mainstream media. Yesterday, CNN featured a segment offering an update on the BYU racism hoax. Now, most media outlets covered it back when they could pretend that there was actually a racist white kid in the stands of a volleyball game shouting the N-word. And they were covering it then.

But now that that story has been revealed to be the hoax, it was always certain to be, they just have moved on. And that's what they always do or usually do in these cases. They report the hoax and then when it turns out to be a hoax and it's revealed as a hoax and there's nothing that they can do to pretend. Otherwise, they move on and don't talk about it anymore. CNN, to their credit, did not. Though in watching this segment, which will play a piece of it here for you,

I'm not sure that they're due all of the credit that people want to give to them. It's a step. It's a little baby step in the right direction. It's a small step towards journalistic integrity, but certainly not maybe the giant leap that some would hope that it would be. But let's listen. Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcuttery with no synthetic nitrates.

Then go seafood. There's an abundance on sale at Whole Foods Market, where it's all sustainable while caught are responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heathe Kish Lorraine, devil-degs, and fresh-cut fruits to go. Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. Healthy skepticism is always a virtue, but this doesn't read like a cover-up. Instead, it feels like there was a rush to judgment because of a well-intentioned impulse to believe the Duke player's accusations.

Now, we need to note that the investigation does not call Rachel Richardson a liar or a fabricator. It leaves open the possibility that she sincerely believed. that she heard repeated racial heckling and that some sort of misunderstanding occurred. For its part, Duke issued a statement saying it was standing by its players, but notably, the Richardson family has not yet responded to CNN's request for comment. Look, systemic racism is real and corrosive to the soul of our country, but facts always have to come first. Listening to ESPN host Stephen A. Smith, who covered the controversy extensively.

Racism, prejudice still exist in this country. We all know it. We know how prevalent it is. And we know that it's something that completely needs to be eradicated. Having said that, we're not doing ourselves any favors if we bring it up and broach it when it doesn't exist. And that's the key that we need to focus on. That's right. And that's why it was surprising to hear the head coach of the South Carolina women basketball team,

Don Staley, say that she was still okay with. canceling her team's games against BYU, regardless of the results of the investigation. Staley says that she's standing by her decision because of her own personal research and commitment to the well-being of her team. But when investigations turn up a very different fact pattern, it's incumbent upon everyone to acknowledge it and adjust.

You gotta love that. The coach, South Carolina coach says, we're not going to BYU because it's a bunch of race, because of this racist incident. And then you circle back and say, well, you know, the racist, it never happened, the racist incident. We're still boycotting. Well, why? But it didn't happen.

Because that's, we feel like it did. Now, a couple of things here to begin with, first of all, is that CNN is covering for Stephen A. Smith here. They're making it sound like Smith actually acknowledged that he was wrong about this situation and held himself accountable. Because remember, as always with these race hoaxes, especially if they are in the realm of sports, ESPN is out in front leading the pitchfork mob,

and in front of all of them is Stephen A. Smith, who's like, he is now the Ben Crump or the Al Sharpton of the sports analyst world. And I'm not sure if he's always been that way, but that's how he is now. That's the ground that he has decided to stake out for himself. When you watch the whole clip, though, we'll go to ESPN, the actual clip,

And here are the 45 seconds that precede the clip that CNN played. And you listen to this and tell me if this sounds like any sort of mea culpa or is this even an acknowledgement that he was wrong? Listen to what he says. Well, first of all, you can take it one or two ways. You can either believe BYU and take them at their word or you can be a bit cynical and skeptical about them, drawing this conclusion, questioning what level of veracity should we attach to them. Pick your side. As it pertains to the Duke player, she says she heard what she heard.

She spoke about it with passion. We don't have any reason to believe her. Duke is given the impression that they completely believe her. And in BYU's statement, they certainly did not accuse her of lying. They simply said they found no evidence. evidence. Okay. So he's not, he's actually doubling down. So CNN, you want to give them credit for sort of acknowledging the reality of a situation. But at the same time, they're doing a favor to one of their compatriots in the media and making it sound like he'd not, he actually

doubles down. He's saying, without saying it totally explicitly, but he gets right up to the edge of it. He's, he said, I still, I think that BYU is lying. Because the way he presents it is, well, you know, he said, it's a, he said she said, right? You could, you could believe BYU and their claims, or you could believe this poor innocent woman who heard what she heard and she spoke with passion. And if someone speaks with passion, they're clearly not lying. No, that's not what it's, it's not just a, oh, one person says this and the other says this and who knows? No, it's actually every single person at the game who was interviewed said they heard no such thing, witnessed no such thing, that all the security, the police, everyone involved in the situation. So it is everybody versus this one girl who claims, who makes a claim.

It's not one versus one. It's not he should see said. It's all of them said, everyone versus this. one person. And also keep in mind that the claim this one person made was outrageous and ridiculous to begin with. And it's also a claim that if it happened, there would be evidence of it. Oh, and it's also, we're also not judging this based on what people said. There's video. You can go. There's a cell phone video, security camera. You know, they were filming, the school was filming the game. All of that video.

And audio. Nothing there. So with all the video, all the audio, everybody there versus what this one person said. And what Stephen A. Smith is implying is that, well, really, we should really, you know, still, she spoke with passion after all. Her passion outweighs all of the evidence. So I don't know if I can give credit to CNN actually. And even if I could, I don't, I'm not going to trip over myself giving the media credit, the news media credit. for doing what it's supposed to do. If you report something, and it turns out that what you reported is not true, or there's a lot more to the story, you're supposed to report that also. So I've seen some people on the right, well, you know, give some hats off to CNN. At least they did this. What? That's what you're supposed to do. You're the news media. The rare occasion that they sort of accidentally do part of what they're supposed to do, we're supposed to do. congratulate you? No. And also, by the way, both Stephen A. Smith and CNN are insisting that the girl didn't lie. Well, no one is saying that she lied. They might not be saying that,

but that's obviously what happened. She clearly lied. Okay, when you claim something occurred that did not occur, there are two options. One is that you're lying. and the other is that you're hallucinating. You know, you're a lunatic hallucinating or you're tripping on drugs or something. You know, if it turns out, they do a toxicology. Maybe we could do a toxicology on this girl. If she was on some sort of hallucinogenic drug or something,

if she went there on LSD and she was playing in a volleyball match, then maybe I would agree that she's not necessarily a liar. This is all part of her LSD trip. But assuming she was sober, then she was lying because either the thing happened or it didn't. And if you're sober and not crazy, there's no way that you could think something like that happened if it didn't happen. So yes, she is a liar. And that is actually a very important point in all of this, is that when a race hoax happens,

and first we're told one story, and then it turns out that the true story is this thing over here, which is totally divorced from the story we were told, it's not enough to just say, oh, yeah, it turns out that this is what really happened. That's not enough. I mean, that's farther than most media outlets will go, because again, they'll just ignore it. But even to say, yeah, well, it turns out this is what really happened.

That's not enough. You have to connect the dots, and it is actually important to say, that girl's a liar. I'll say it. She is a liar. She is a liar, a con artist, a scammer. There should be criminal.

charges for something like this. Because there's a real cost here. This is not just free speech. You can make, you can, this is defamatory. She lied. She is a scumbag liar. And she was perfectly willing. They took some random kid and they accused him of racism. And she was perfectly willing to let that kid live with it. He's got to carry that for the rest of his life. as the racist who was shouting the N-word at a volleyball match. And she was willing for that to happen. He gets banned. If he got expelled, whatever.

She was fine with that. This is like sociopathic behavior, actually. And that is a really important part to say that. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It wasn't she feels one way and they feel the other. It's she's a liar and a terrible person. and that's how she should be labeled and seen,

and she should carry that shame for the rest of her life. All right, Dr. Oz, proving yet again why he's the one Republican in Pennsylvania. Well, I mean, he isn't even, he's not in Pennsylvania, actually, he's in New Jersey, but he's the one Republican who could actually lose to a man who at this point is like a post-lobotomy Jack Nicholson and one flew over the cuckus nest. So here's Dr. Oz. He tweeted this, I'm proud to join this effort. with fellow Republicans, I believe that same-sex couples should have the same freedom to get married as straight couples.

And he's reacting to, referring to a Washington Post article about prominent Republicans who are pushing other GOP senators to support this bill that would codify same-sex marriage. Now, no Republicans should support this bill. Many have. We knew Dr. Oz would. I mean, Dr. Oz was on board with chemically castrating children. He was ahead of the transing the kid bandwagon by several years. He was out 2011, 2010 talking about how wonderful it is that we've got trans kids. So, no surprise there. But no Republicans should support it, even though many have, many more probably will. It should be self-evident as to why, but apparently it isn't.

The bill seeks to codify the redefinition of marriage on a federal level. This will be the federal government defining what marriage is and then forcing that definition onto the states. Now, this is unnecessary to begin with, even from a leftist perspective, or seemingly unnecessary from their perspective, because the Supreme Court already imposed this redefinition on the states, and that decision isn't going anywhere. Despite what you may have heard, that decision is not going anywhere. Now, if it was just up to Clarence Thomas, maybe it would be, but it's not.

And the other justice, even the so-called conservative originalists, whatever you want to call them, I can guarantee you that most of them would not be on board with overturning the Supreme Court's codification, its decree that the old definition of marriage is no longer legitimate. They should be on board with that, but they're not. They should be on board with overturning. it on me. But beyond that, is this really conservative? I mean, to support the federal government declaring what a marriage is and then telling the states to abide by that edict. This is a conservative position? I mean, 10 years ago, it was not a conservative position to support gay marriage

at all. And now the conservative position is to not only support it, but to support the federal government in stating it across the country. And the worst thing is that they're, I keep saying it's a redefinition of marriage, but that's not exactly the right way to put it because a redefinition involves getting rid of an old definition and then coming up with a new one. But as we always talk about, That's not how redefinition works on the left. Getting rid of the old definition, that part they like. So they'll come along and say, this word, this term that you've been using, and then, in fact, all of human society has been using in different languages

since the dawn of human civilization, it doesn't mean that anymore. That's not what it means. And then the immediate question and response is, well, if that's not what it means, what does it mean now? And they have no answer to that. their only answer is how dare you ask that, you bigot. It just doesn't mean that, that's it. Well, what does it mean? It doesn't mean that.

That's what we know. So they redefined marriage, not by giving it a new definition, but by giving it no definition at all. Now it just doesn't really mean anything. They don't know what it means. Before it was a fundamentally procreative, you know, in principle, procreative union between a man and a woman, and it served as the foundation. of human society because males and females are the only ones that can have babies and start

biological families. And so the marriage was the platform, the context within which those families were started. That's what marriage was. And then they said it's not that anymore. Well, then what is it? They don't have an answer. They have vague kind of bumper sticker slogans about love is love. Anyone can love anyone else? Well, really? Anyone? So just any any arrangement of people because now a marriage? Well, no, don't be absurd. That's not what it is.

That's slippery slope fallacy. Well, then what is it? Don't answer. They can't answer it. The other thing to keep in mind about this is that this will absolutely be used to go after the churches.

This is another thing that shouldn't have to be explained. That's actually why the left is dealing it. So if you're wondering, given that there is actually no threats to gay marriage, so called. There's no threat to it. So why are they doing it? It's because this is a move against religious liberty. It's a move against the churches. That's what it is. If they can codify on a federal level with federal legislation that, you know,

same-sex couples can get married, that it's their right, it's their human right to get married, then they could turn around and say to the churches, you are denying these gay couples their human rights. And obviously, that doesn't count as religious liberty. Right? I mean, churches have the freedom to do what they want and to exercise and profess their own religious, but they can't deny human rights to somebody.

And actually, that part of the statement is true. You don't have the right to deny someone their human rights, even if your religion says that. Like, if your religion declares that you can go up, and just walk up someone and shoot them in the head, but we would all agree that that's, no, your religious liberty is not going to cover that because you're taking away their fundamental human right to live.

The difference is that there is no human right to marry in whatever arrangement you want. That doesn't exist. But by codifying that concept on the federal level, that gives them the basis, gives them the argument, the weapon that they need, the sledgehammer that they'll use to beat churches over the head.

That's what this is. And so any Republican or conservative doesn't matter how you feel about gay marriage has an issue. If you're supporting this, then you are supporting the move against the churches and the move against religiously because that's what it's. And the only argument on the other side, the only argument to try to debunk what I'm saying now is that, well, but the Democrats have said they won't do that, though. Yes, this legislation would give them the excuse. It would give them a platform to wage this war against the law. insurgents, but they said they wouldn't. Well, if that argument, if that's compelling or convincing to you, there's nothing else to even talk about. They said they wouldn't. I mean, if, if,

if I had a dime for every time Democrats said they wouldn't do some horrific thing and then did it anyway, I'd have, you know, I'd have a few dollars by now, at least. I wanted to show you this. This is just an example of a slightly subtle, slightly, slightly, slightly subtle bias and propaganda in the media. Because sometimes it's blatant, sometimes it's a little bit more subtle. So this is the New York Times. Okay, this is their headline, or at least their caption when they posted Twitter. Oberlin College has agreed to pay $36.59 million to a bakery that said it was falsely accused of racism after it caught a student shoplifting. Oberlin College has agreed to pay because a bakery said they were falsely accused of racism.

Now, this is no different than if the headline said, you know, man agrees to spend life in prison without parole after it is said that he killed someone. That's what they're doing with this headline. No, Oberlin College, first of all, has not agreed to pay. They've been ordered by the court to pay because they defamed this bakery and damaged their business and the lives of the people running the bakery tremendously, done in fact irreparable harm. So they've been ordered to pay, but they have fought tooth and nail to not pay, and they still have not paid. They have not agreed to pay. And it wasn't that the bakery just said it was falsely accused of racism. They were falsely accused of racism.

The courts have multiple courts have determined. that. And even before the courts determined it, we knew it was true. Because the whole basis for the racism claim that Oberlin College and activists in the area came up with is that, you know, because this bakery didn't allow themselves to be the victims of shoplifting, then they're racist. And in fact, you know, you could go and read into this case. We've talked about it before on the show. But the details of this case are just... really mind-boggling. When this first happened, and these students at Oberlin College, they went to the bakery, and they stole from it, and someone at the bakery tried to stop them,

because that's not your property. You have to pay for that. There are laws here. Or so they thought. The initial response from the college was words to the effect of, paraphrase, but not by much, that, well, can you let them steal once? Like, can every student at least be allowed to steal once. If they only steal once, then don't go to the police about that. A second time is different, but everyone should get one free, you know, just one free item. They can just walk in and take it. And because the bakery would not agree to that arrangement, would not agree to be to open themselves up to being victims of theft by college students, they were branded as racist. And this wealthy, highly funded, well-funded institute,

launched into this year's long effort to destroy this bakery simply because they were trying to defend themselves from thieves. That's what actually happened. So slightly different from the way the New York Times has presented it. This is from The Daily Wire says Warner Brothers altered the video game multiverses last week to prevent the Scooby-Doo character Velma from calling the police. I don't know if she also worked to the, maybe she was working at a bakery too. I don't know.

For nearly 50 years, the Scooby-Doo franchise has shown the Mystery Incorporated gang. solving crimes and alerting police to the presence of potential criminals. But critics have recently labeled Velma a Karen for doing precisely what had seemed innocent enough before, flashing a wanted poster and calling the cops on characters from across the Warner Brothers Discovery catalog. Warner Brothers games announced last week, instead of calling the police, Velma now solves the mystery and calls the mystery ink gang and the mystery machine to take the bad guys away. One petition that drew a bare 34 signatures lamb-based in Warner Brothers, stating,

although historically the Scooby-Doo gang has but not always worked with the police to catch the suspect within the cartoons, this cop car is not necessary in the game, nor does it add meaning to her move set. Whatever that means? Moveset? Is that a video game term? I don't know. For decades and especially in recent times, black and indigenous people of color around the world have suffered under police brutality, and this cop car is ignoring the problem of police brutality in this day. an age. It was a petition with 34 signatures for this video game saying that black and indigenous people are victims of police brutality in the real world and in video games, or at least they're traumatized when they see references to the police in video games. And so for that reason,

she shouldn't call the police. I'm surprised they didn't adjust the game so then instead she calls a social worker, you know, cause a therapist or something to come. And then in the video game, that's what the video game would become. Like, Valma finds the bad guy and then calls a social worker, calls a therapist, and then the video game, you actually get to see the counseling session between the criminal and the therapist. You can play it out on the game until the therapist is just shot in the head by the bad guy, and that's the end of the game. 34 signatures on a petition, and they decided to make the change. This just shows you, again, the cultural power, the systemic power. The systemic

power that you have on the left. A few complaints and a change is made. Meanwhile, we're talking about Warner Brothers. It's a multi, multi, multi, multi billion dollar corporation. And you would think that they've got all the money in the world and all of the power and resources they need to withstand pressure from a petition of 34 people who are claiming to be upset because they saw something in a video game. And they could withstand it, but they choose not to. Because if you're on the left, your one vote, culturally speaking,

counts for like a million. You count for a million people. Get 34 people together. It's 34 million people crying out. And that's to say nothing in the fact that why are there adults playing a Scooby-Doo video game in the first place? I read through some of these tweets, and there aren't many that we're complaining about this,

but again, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Just one person can complain, and it'll bring a corporation, a billion-dollar corporation to its knees. But the few people complaining seem to be adults, as far as I can tell, who not only are claiming to be traumatized by a cop car in a video game, but are playing a Scooby-Doo video game to begin with. That's the real problem here. And by the way, one thing I'll say about adults playing video games,

this is kind of a side note, a sidebar here, because I know that I've been hard on grown-up gamers in the past, and I always upset the gaming community. Well, it's not really a community just because you all like playing video game. It doesn't make a community. But still, I always upset them when I talk about this. And so I do want to acknowledge one thing. Because I think this is important to acknowledge.

That if you can do it in moderation, right, play video games. It is fine. It's just recreation. It's relaxation, whatever. Now, I think playing a Scooby-Doo video game, even in moderation, is ridiculous and embarrassing. but it's not going to hurt you if you're in moderation. Like every once in a while you like to sit down and play a video game, whatever. And it isn't all that different because when I talk about this, the rejoinder, the rebuttal

from the gamers is, well, you watch football. What's the difference? It is a little bit different. But I get the point. You know, yeah, it's a similar sort of thing. Now, I watch basically one football game a week all the way through. And that's only from September to January. And I'll watch other games on occasion.

You know, I'll check some scores here and there, that kind of thing. But religiously, I will watch one game a week for about 17 weeks of the year, a few more weeks if the Ravens don't suck this year. But it looks like they probably do. There are people who will watch football literally all weekend long. They watch college on Saturday. They watch professional on Sunday. And they watch all the games.

They just sit there and that's all they do. There are dads whose families lose them for the entire football season. Like the weekends are gone all of football season because both Saturday and Sunday are completely dominated by the dad's desire to just sit on his ass and watch football. Like 24 hours of football every weekend. And there are people whose fandom consumes them. They take it very, very seriously, way too seriously. They get into, I just saw another, I think it was at probably, I'm assuming it was at a Jets game, but maybe it wasn't.

You know, another violent altercation at a football game. People go to games and they get into, or they go to sports bars. Yeah, there's drinking involved also, but they get into actual violent altercations with other fans about whose team is best. And they start trying to kill each other over. That's how seriously they take it. All of this is childish and sad. And it represents a recreational activity, which has become a lifestyle. And that is where video games, I think, we should say, are a problem.

That's why I don't like the phrase that the gamer can. When you're referring to it as a community, now you've made it into a lifestyle choice. It's like your life revolves around it. That is the issue. And when we're adults, our lives should not revolve around recreation. It should not revolve around our favorite recreational activity. Our lives should not revolve around entertainment. Even our kids' lives shouldn't revolve around entertainment.

We should have, we should raise our kids to have it. richer, more interesting, more vibrant lives than that. That's the point. Okay, let's get to the comment section. Frank S says the first documented slave owner in American history was Anthony Johnson, a black man who was a former slave himself. Slavery wasn't about black versus white, but rich versus poor. Well, if we're talking about slavery as an institution historically,

You can't even say rich versus poor, obviously. It could also be, you know, because people were conquered and became slaves. So it was conquered versus conquerors. It was, there were many different dynamics. Now, it's true that there are black slave owners in the United States, but largely, you know, largely for the most part, it was white people owning black slaves. That, of course, is true. The problem is when you try to say, when you're speaking about slavery in general, okay, if we want to expand our horizons to talk about the entire institution, the whole

history of slavery, which is what we should be talking about, that's a conversation we should have. But it's such an ancient and ubiquitous thing. I mean, what you can say about it is exactly what I just said, that it's ancient and ubiquitous, that it's the ownership of humans. it's the debasement of the human person to the level of property. That's what it is across all cultures and throughout for thousands of years across the world. That's what it was.

And it existed. And this is not again, when we talk about, well, there were slavery in other places in the world, that's not what aboutism. It's just an acknowledgement of a really important historical reality that people actually don't know because there is such a campaign to make sure that we don't talk about it. All right. Another comment says, the woman king should be canceled because it has actors and actresses portraying slaves and not actual slaves, such as LeBron James and Colin Kaepernick, the multimillionaire

is enslaved by the NBA and the NFL. Very good point. I hadn't thought about that. Dominique says, every time Matt says Dahomey, it's the funniest statement I've ever heard. Yeah, I almost made a joke about that. Unfortunately, the SBG in the comments took care of that for me. I knew I didn't have to make the joke because you'd pick up on it. I don't know if I was mispronouncing the ancient African kingdom, but, I mean, it's spelled D-A-H-O-M-E-Y.

So I think it's pronounced Dahomey. So it's the kingdom of Dahomey. You know, Dahomey down the way. Don't mess with the homie. The homie don't play. These are all things you could say about the kingdom of Dahomey. It's a historically accurate thing to say. And I'm not making a joke about it.

To be clear, I was going to say, people in the comments are making jokes. I'm not making that joke. I'm just saying, the homie is what it's called. Heather McCoy says, if we, SBG are doing Flannel Friday, then Matt needs to come up with his own flannel pattern, patent it, and make it available with the rest of the SBG merch for now. But almost positive, he could be a retailer to offer them as well. Also, as a special sockwear myself, I was outraged to hear that you subscribe to a sock company. that would not throw in a free laundry sock mesh with your first order to ensure the safe return of such an important item. Yeah, we actually did have this very conversation.

Can we, is it possible for me to have my own flannel, my own line of flannels? That's actually like my ultimate dream in life. I think if I had that, then my career would be complete. I could actually retire. That's what all has been leading to, actually. It's all been leading to me having, me being a fashion designer of my own line of flannels. I don't know if that's possible how feasible it really is, but I will pursue that. I will never give up on my dreams.

Nate says, I don't think Matt can say the word portion. Am I saying that word wrong? Portion? Portion? Is that not the right way to say it? Portion. Now I'm saying the word too much, and it's lost all meaning when you say a word too much. You're banned from the show for that.

Well, if you didn't hear, we had a big announcement this week. Candace Owens is back from maternity leave with a vein. Her brand new show, Candace Owens, launches, well, in fact, it launched yesterday on Daily Wire Plus and takes on the big topics of the day, uncovers lies and exposes the hypocrisy and news and politics, and you know it's going to be done in typical Candace style, fearless and resolute. This is everything you love about Candace, only now she's streaming five days a week. You'll not want to miss her explosive first episode, which premiered yesterday. Trust me when I say this, it's huge. So watch Candace Owens' show on DailyWire Plus or listen on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Our cancellation today begins with Brian Stelter, but does not end with him. We have already covered the tragic news of the death of Stelter's beloved CNN show, beloved by Stelter himself at least, and that ought to have been good enough. I mean, he liked doing it. For many years, it was good enough as Stelter pulled in a handsome paycheck and hosted a show without any pressure to actually generate, you know, an audience. But then the gravy train came to a halt.

and Brian was understandably devastated because he loves gravy, obviously, and also he loves his job at CNN, perhaps even more. But that job is now gone. What will he do now that he's unemployed? Will he apply for an assistant manager job at Best Buy? Will he start making a living, selling his homemade arts and crafts projects on Etsy? Will he wind up on the street, homeless and jobless, where he could at least get more public exposure than he ever did at CNN?

No, unfortunately, Brian has suffered. a fate far more embarrassing and shameful than that. He just got a job at Harvard. The Hill reports, quote, Brian Stelter, a former CNN host and noted media pundit, is joining Harvard Kennedy School's Shoreenstein Center on Media Politics and Public Policy. Stelter will serve as a media and democracy fellow and convene a series of discussions about what the center described as threats to democracy and the range of potential responses from the news media. Quote, these discussions with media, policymakers, politicians, and Kennedy School students, fellows, and faculty will help deepen public and scholarly understanding about the current state of the information ecosystem and its impacts on

democratic governance, the school said in an announcement. Now, at first glance, this seems to be an interesting career path. Brian Stelter is a graduate of Towson University in Maryland. Towson University is renowned for being the sort of school where you can graduate with honors, even if you were only sober for like three or four cumulative days throughout your entire college career, not unlike most every other college in America, admittedly. Though Stelter, to his credit, was surely sober far more often than that, mostly because, you know, nobody invited him to parties, I assume. But the question is this. How does a Towson graduate who hosted a little

scene weekend CNN show wind up working in the Ivy League? And how did he land this job so quickly after getting canned? The answer is that Stelter, although a mediocre, talentedless, dishonest hack, is part of a system. He's part of an apparatus. And now that he's in it, he never has to leave. He can just be cycled through from one institution to the next, failing at one job and then the other, and always ending up with another job even more prestigious than the one before. It's likely that, you know, next he'll have some sort of bureaucratic post and then he'll end up back in the media again. And then maybe he'll find himself sitting on a corporate board somewhere. For people like Stelter, the system is like a lazy river at a water park. You know, all you need to do is just

sit on an inner tube and float around in circles from one stop to the next. It's as easy as that. Now, Stelter is, of course, not the only piece of human driftwood floating on this very fortunate tide. It works this way for all of them. Jen Pesaki left her job at the White House, immediately secured her next gig at NBC. Actually, she secured the gig even before leaving her job at the White House. Karen Jean-Pair, on the other hand, went from NBC to the White House. This is how it works. academia, media, government, always trading players between each other, swapping one for the other. Corporate America is also part of this club. All of these institutions are staffed and run by the same people. That's why they all work in tandem with each other. It's why they're always on the

same page. It's why they are in effect one organization. They're different limbs of the same body. Now, you sometimes hear these ruling institutions referred to as the cathedral. The idea, I think, is that the media, academia, government, corporate America, they not only rule over the country and govern our lives, but they also act as the intellectual core of society, just as the church once did in earlier times. They decide what sort of ideas we must accept and which we must reject. They tell us what is true and what is not. And again, they're always on the same page. They never disagree with each other. Never. Today they have decided that men can get pregnant and that white people are inherently evil and that, you know, obesity is beautiful and dozens of other absurd propositions.

There is no disagreement between any of these institutions on any of these subjects or any other subject. They present a united front, taking even the most insane sorts of ideas and instantly normalizing them. That's the effect here. because they're all on the same page and they're all effectively one institution, they can take any idea no matter how ridiculous and instantly just like that it is normal because of the fact that through these institutions they're able to normalize anything. Now, I think the cathedral is an apt label to describe this system. I also think the system could be called simply the system.

Others, you know, call them the ruling class or the elite or the oligarchy. all of those terms apply. Personally, I do wonder whether it deserves a slightly more, I don't know, scatological description. Perhaps we could refer to the media, academia, government, corporations, and big tech as the kind of our country's giant human centipede. And if that's too grotesque, and maybe it is, then here's another idea. The octopus. You know, an octopus has one large brain, but each of its eight tentacles have their own kind of mini brains. This allows the tentacles to operate independently of each other and yet always in service to the whole. So the arms have minds of their own, sort of, but also not really, because even if all the tentacles don't require the

conscious direction of the large brain in order to operate, they're all part of the same octopus. They work apart, but together. This is the mystery of the octopus in the sea and of our ruling institutions. They appear to operate as independent entities, and yet they are all tentacles of the same slimy, hideous sea monster working towards the same end. Now, we hear quite a lot from the media and politicians about the need to defend our democracy. In fact, that's what Brian Stelter is going to be talking about. That's what he's going to be teaching classes and holding seminars about this over at Harvard. And yet, they all work to maintain this system, this octopus, whose very existence makes democracy essentially irrelevant. Because in a real functioning democracy,

These institutions would have antagonistic, or at least indifferent relationships towards each other. The media, if we really had a democracy that functions, the media would act as a watchdog holding the government accountable. Academia would stand apart from these other two, and business would focus on business. Instead, they all have the same ideological agenda, even higher from the same pool of candidates. This means that if the voters do make a decision that the other tentacles disapprove of, they'll just turn against the intruder like white blood cells attacking a virus and undermine the voter selection until a system approved person can be installed in his place. This of course is exactly what

happened with Donald Trump. Now, Brian Stelter is a small player in all of this, but he's also emblematic. His show on CNN was ostensibly a show about media criticism, but all he did was defend the media. And then when Biden was in office, he defended the government too. that's why he will remain in the system forever, taken care of, because they take care of their own, perpetually failing upwards. And who was he defending these institutions against? Well, you and me, because we're the peasants, the rabble, the subjects, and it's our job to listen and accept whatever we're told and behave as we are instructed.

If we fail in that regard, then we are the enemy. and all of the tentacles will agree on that point too. That's why this thing, whatever you want to call it, the octopus, the cathedral, the human centipede, the incestuous orgy of mediocrity, whatever it is, is today canceled. And that'll leave it there for us for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.

Hope to see you over there and become a Daily Water member if you haven't yet so that you can join us for the last part of the show every day. Otherwise, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.