The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 268 - Cowardly Media Ignores Bombshell MLK Story

Episode Date: May 30, 2019

There is a bombshell story about Martin Luther King Jr that the media is completely ignoring. We won't ignore it. We'll discuss the disturbing revelations and talk about what they mean for MLK's legacy. Also, the efforts to normalize pedophilia are going full speed ahead. I’ll share the latest horrifying example. And finally, how many victimhood points do I earn now that I’m a cripple? The math gets pretty complicated. Date: 05-30-19 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, there is a bombshell story about Martin Luther King Jr. that the media is completely ignoring. We will talk about that story, though. We're not going to ignore it. We're going to talk about what it means, what we should do with it, how it affects his legacy. Does it mean we've got to start tearing down the Martin Luther King Jr. monuments? We'll talk about all that. Also, the efforts to normalize pedophilia are full speed ahead in our society. And the latest example of that is truly horrifying. I'll share that with you today on the show. also finally how many victimhood points do I earn now that I'm a cripple that is a complicated subject for me as a as a white man the mathematics can get very complicated but we will try to sort through that and get to the bottom of that today as well on the Matt Wall show okay well I have decided to do the whole show from now on with my crutches in the shot the whole time and I figure will make me a more

you know sympathetic um figure softened my image a little bit bit. I'm told that I'm, you know, I need to soften it a little bit. So, I mean, you can't send hate mail to a cripple, can you? So think about that. Whenever you're, whenever you're sitting down to write your hate mail, think about this. Okay? I think about the, I'm on crutches, you monster. My leg. Ow, my leg, the pain. The pain. Curse you pain. Need to work on that a little bit. I'm usually a better actor than that. I'm sorry. I'll just, I'll have to develop it. So the point is, anyway, the point is just feel sorry for me because I am a victim. All right. Okay, let's, let's, let's, I want to start with a story that is, that is

horrific, breathtaking, shocking, certainly newsworthy, I would think. Yet it has been almost completely ignored by the American media. and conservative media. In fact, the story broke on, I think it was Sunday or Monday, and here we are on Thursday, and still, I think most people in America aren't aware of it, just simply have not heard of it, because almost no media outlet will touch it. It's been one of the most, and I know this is quite a statement, but I would say it's been one of the most spectacular displays of collective cowardice by our media in a long time, and that is saying something I realize. The story I'm referring to is about Martin Luther King Jr.

A man who was canonized even before his death, and certainly after his death, has been given the status of something that I think goes beyond even saint to probably God. He's greater than a saint. He's more like an American god of sorts. And, of course, no mortal being can live up to that billing. No human being can be a deity or should be seen as a deity.

And if reports, if the recent reports about Martin Luther King Jr. are true, then that goes especially for him. Now, it's always been known by those who care to pay attention that MLK was a womanizer, an adulterer. So that part really isn't new. He had many, many affairs with many women, probably fathered. an illegitimate child, had orgies and hotel rooms and that sort of thing. That stuff we knew, at least informed people knew about that. And I suppose that those are the kinds of flaws that, though they are very serious,

I mean, these are very serious moral failings. If you are not faithful to your wife are, in fact, serially unfaithful to your wife, then you have failed as a man in one of the most fundamental ways. If you have illegitimate children who you didn't even accept as your own children, you failed as a father as well. So, failing as a husband and a father is pretty serious failings. But I think we generally accept those kinds of failings in historical figures. And maybe for good reason, because if we start recording,

requiring that all of our great historical figures also be chased and faithful to their spouses. Although that's not that high of a bar to get over, if we started applying that bar throughout history, I think we would find that we don't have very many people left to honor at all, which maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing. But I don't know. There's more to the story, though, with Martin Luther King Jr., it appears. According to a new report, he wasn't just a womanizer. He wasn't just an adulterer. He was also a violent abuser and an enthusiastic and approving witness of rape, an accomplice in rape, perhaps even a rapist himself, depending on how we define our terms. I mean, I think there are a lot of people would say, if you're an accomplice in rape, then you're a rapist. So let me read now from the Daily Mail. And I'm reading from the Daily Mail because, again, the American media won't touch the story with a 10-foot pole. In fact, if you go right now to Google and try this, not right now, but after the

show, go Google, Martin Luther King, Jr., click on the news tab on Google, and scroll down and look at the outlets that have stories about Martin Luther King right now, you're going to find stories in places like Business Insider, Daily Mail, Christian Post, The Independent. You're not going to see a CNN or NBC or one of those guys. So from the Daily Mail, just reading from the top of of the article, says, listening through headsets into the bugged hotel suite next door, the small group of FBI agents couldn't quite believe the sorted events that were unfolding. It was January 1964, and they were hearing what sounded like a pastor raping a female member of his congregation while his boss looked on laughing and offering advice.

The voices of both men were familiar. According to the agents sitting in the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., the rapist was an assistant to civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., and his cohort, or anti-eastern. His chortling companion was the anti-racism icon himself. The man whose I Have a Dream speech delivered a year earlier continues to inspire activists to this day. It goes on, but King's exalted status could be about to unravel. For according to a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of King, newly released FBI files reveal that the binge-drinking preacher had affairs with 40 to 45 women

indulged in hotel room orgies and even fathered an illegitimate child. The documents also paint a violent picture of King whose lust could soon turn to anger. In May 1965, for example, one agent reported that the civil rights leader had gone to the home of one of his female staff and torn her clothes off of her in an apparent attempt to attack her. Now, this biographer is David Garrow, and he is not some crackpot. He's a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Martin Luther King Jr. He's a respected literary figure, and that's who this is coming from. More a little bit later on in the article, it says, according to Garrow's research,

the FBI planted transmitters in two lamps in the Willard Hotel that King had booked for himself and his friends in January 1964. When King arrived, his close friend Logan Curse, the pastor of a Baltimore Baptist church, invited King and his friends to meet women parishioners of his church that he had brought to Washington with him. What followed was a disturbing act of sexual violence. The group met in his room and discussed which women among the parishioners

would be suitable for natural or unnatural acts, said an FBI summary, when one of the women protested the Baptist minister immediately and forcibly raped her. It added, King looked on, laughed, and offered advice. The following evening, say the files King and his friends participated in a sex orgy involving 12 people at the hotel. Included acts of degeneracy and depravity. It goes on from there. there was one woman who didn't want to participate.

She tried to shy away from it, but King pressured her and told her that it would help her soul if she participated in the orgy. Some more details like that, details with prostitutes and so on. According to his friend Ralph Abernathy, King spent the last night of his life with two lovers, followed by an encounter with a third woman whom he knocked sprawling across his motel room bed after an argument. And there are more sorted details from there. But maybe you get the idea.

This is a man who, according to this report, is not only a womanizer, not only an adulterer, but not only the father of an illegitimate child, but more importantly, someone who condoned and enjoyed watching rape, which, in my opinion, does make him no different from a rapist. I don't see any distinction, really, between a rapist and someone who cheers on, eggs on, gives

advice to a rapist and watches, well, you're a rapist too. It's really no difference. Someone who abused women exploited them. Someone who used his position as a pastor and civil rights leader to prey on women. That's the picture painted. Now, it will be said that these stories are false, that they were made up by racist FBI agents to smear MLK. And it's true that there were plenty of people in law enforcement in those days and the government in those days who didn't like Martin Luther King Jr. Because they were racist.

And they didn't like his agenda of what was his agenda. His agenda was civil rights, right? Equal rights. So that's true. And you have to take that in consideration. but the problem with assuming that this is all made up because of racism is, well, there are a few problems. Number one, these stories are not all coming from the FBI. King's own friends and acquaintances give us some of these details.

That bit about him, you know, knocking a woman down the night before his death in a fit of anger. Well, that's from his friend. That's not from, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, unfortunately. files. The FBI files, unfortunately, match up pretty well with the picture that is painted of King by people close to him. So it fits in. So it's not as though you've got these FBI files and then everyone who knew King says, no, it's not the man I knew. That's crazy. He never would have done anything like that. That's not what's happening here. Second thing is, this report comes from, as I said, I respected impulsar prize-winning biographer of Martin Luther King Jr.

Not somebody with a political agenda. Not a white nationalist, neo-Nazi, something like that. And number three, Garrow accessed FBI summaries of the tapes. The tapes themselves have been sealed until 2027. It's going to be another eight years before we get to hear these tapes ourselves. But the significance of that is if the tapes are fabricated to smear Martin Luther King junior, then why would they be sealed for 60 years? You know, you don't, if you're going to make up fake tapes to smear somebody, you don't file them away for a generation to make sure that nobody hears them.

It doesn't make any sense. The fact that these things have been on their lock and key and have been a state secret for so long, that only lends credibility to them. Because why else would we be locking these tapes up. If the tapes just contain Martin Luther King being a great guy and if there's a lot of great stuff in there about what a wonderful duty was behind the scenes, then I think we would have heard these tapes a long time ago,

like 50 years ago, 60 years ago. But that's not the case. So while of course we can't say for sure, we can't say that we know for sure just as we can't really know anything for sure about any historical figure, I mean, we can, we're only dealing with degrees of probability whenever we're talking about any detail of any historical figure's life because most of us weren't there to see any of it, right? So that's the case, but it does seem like these stories about King are very credible and there is very good reason to believe them.

Unfortunately, I don't want to believe them. Why would I want to? I don't think anybody wants to. but and I wouldn't want to believe really it doesn't even matter who he would he could have just been some random Joe Schmo I wouldn't want to but I don't want to believe this kind of stuff about anybody whoever no matter who they are

because it's horrible stuff but there is good reason to believe them good factual reason so then what then you know what do we do with it well I'll tell you what we don't do with it or what we shouldn't do with it.

We shouldn't ignore it. We shouldn't bury it. We shouldn't pretend that it never happened. We shouldn't continue along worshipping the man while plugging our ears so that none of these details can interfere with our devotional practices. We shouldn't do that.

And we shouldn't do that because it's not honest. It's cowardly. It's wrong. It's just wrong. So do we go the other way? Do we rip down his statues? Do we take his name off of schools and streets and all of that? I mean, Martin Luther King's name and likeness and his statues and monuments are everywhere.

So do we get rid of all that stuff? Well, if we're adopting a single standard, if we're adopting a single consistent standard, then yes, then that's exactly what we do. If Thomas Jefferson's murals have to come down. if Columbus statues have to come down, if Robert E. Lee comes down, if all of these men get that treatment, then why should MLK be exempt? There's just no good reason to exempt him. There just isn't. Sure, their sins are not the same. When we're talking about these other guys I mentioned, their sins are racial. They were racist who in some fashion either condoned or participated in slavery. MLK wasn't that. He was the opposite. He was the opposite.

of that when it comes to the racial issue. But are his sins really better? I mean, what's worse? Slavery or rape? So what's worse? To condone and cheer on slavery or to condone and cheer on rape? I mean, is that a discussion you want to have? Because I don't. Do you really want to get into ranking them and having that argument? Yeah, well, it's a rape, but it's not as bad as slavery. I would say that they are both hideously evil. I don't know if much more of a moral distinction can be drawn between them. And so I think we just leave it at that. They are hideously evil acts.

And so it can be said of Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. That they both condoned and participated in hideously evil acts. that involved the exploitation, dehumanization, and violent abuse of other human beings. That's what we can say about both of those men. And if that's the standard, you know, if we have the one standard and we're using the standard that results in taking down Martin Luther King statues and murals,

then, yeah, MLK's monuments have to come down. and his names have to come off the schools. There is another option. Okay, the other option is that we adopt one standard the other way, that we keep the MLK monuments and we keep his names on the schools and on the streets. And we also keep the Jefferson monuments. And we keep the Columbus monuments. And we keep all of the monuments.

And we start to develop a mature, intelligent, nuanced, view of these men. We stop idolizing them because no man should be idolized. We stop worshipping them because no man should be worshipped, MLK included. We don't ignore their flaws because no man should have his moral failings ignored. We allow criticism because every man deserves criticisms for the evil that he commits, even if he's dead. That doesn't make it any better. If MLK condoned and participated in rapes and orgies and things like that, just because he's dead, that doesn't change the evil of those acts. And they still deserve to be condemned.

But we also recognize the greatness of their achievements. And we recognize that these are all men who did things that we could not do. And things that had to be done. Things that changed the course of history. We recognize that we honor these men because if they had never existed, the entire world would be different and probably for the worst. And that's why we honor them. And if that's the standard, if that's what we're doing now, then yeah, then this information about MLK, it doesn't change anything with respect to his monuments and all that stuff. but it also can't change anything with these other monuments either. And I think that's the way it's got to be.

In my opinion, that third option is the way to go, where maybe we just start being honest and we develop, as I said, a nuanced view of these historical figures, which I think allows us to learn a lot more about history and a lot more from history. And it just makes the historical pursuit a lot more fruitful. When you're not worried anymore, and this is one thing that I've realized about, because I enjoy reading about history.

But very often when we pick up a book of history, no matter who it's about or whatever historical period it's about, We go into it with preconceived notions. We go into it with biases. We go into it with a sort of a narrative in mind that we're trying to support. And I think we all do that very often when it comes to historical subjects. What I've found is it's just it's a lot more fruitful. It's a lot more interesting. It's a lot more worthwhile if you can manage to just put all that to the side and actually try to understand what really happened and who these people really were, and to be willing to have your childish notions about these people destroyed, and then replaced with not an equally childish and simplistic notion on the other side, where they go from gods to demons, no, not that, but replaced with a view of these people as human beings, as complicated human beings, who were capable of incredible acts of courage, but also incredible acts of evil at the same time because that's that's what it means to be human and i'm okay

with that i'm okay with looking at history that way i'm just i'm not okay with giving martin luther king junior a pass while not giving anyone else a pass you just we can't do that i'm sorry uh i admire what he did for the cause of civil rights as much as anybody else but if the man was an abuser and he condoned rape, then that needs to be discussed. And that is something that is part of his legacy, whether we like it or not. And that's got to be talked about in the schools. When the subject comes up in history, that stuff needs to be talking about because that's part of who he was. Apparently, it was a really significant part of who he was. All right. Let's stay with British media here for a minute. I was just giving them credit for running the MLK story, but now I have to condemn them

for this. Hey, sweetie, your mother showed me this Carvana thing for selling the car. I'm going to give it a try. Wish me luck. Me again, I put in the license plate. It gave me an offer. Unbelievable. Okay, I accepted the offer. They're picking it up Tuesday from the driveway. I haven't even left my chair. It's done. The car is gone. I'm holding a check. Anyway, Carvana. Give it a whirl. Love you.

So good, you'll want to leave a voicemail about it. Sell your car today on... Carvana. Pick up fees may apply. It's the start of the summer holidays, and for this age gap couple, a chance to unwind. I love camping because it's peace and quiet. I'm Andy, and I'm 47.

And I'm Beth, and I'm 19. Their 28-year age gap may make them look like father and daughter, but they are every bit a married couple. My dearly beloved is going to set up the doghouse. When I get told off, I'll have to go and live in the tent for a bit. Andy was originally a friend of Beth's mum, and over the years became close to her children too. We would all like one happy family,

but needless to say, I didn't know that Beth was like getting these thoughts, that she wanted me to be a happy man forever sort of thing, you know. But once she reached the age of 16, Beth wanted to take their friendship to the next level. The age doesn't really bother me. It never has done. I don't see him as an old man or my dad or anything like that. It's just sensitive. I think a big teddy there. Stop it. Stop it. I was concerned what people who think, 16, 40. It's a big, it's a big. You know, it's a generation gap sort of thing, so it's like, what are people going to think?

However, when Andy realised Beth was serious, he decided to give this controversial relationship a go. Oh, my days. Right, just leave it, leave it, leave it, leave it, leave it. Getting all aerated with you today. You're all stressed. That's not going to work. Chill, just chill. Chill. Chill. It is what it is.

I have. And once they'd fallen in love, Andy became determined to give Beth every single. thing she had ever wanted. Head will do. This is Timmy, and he's two, and this is Conway, and he's one. I've always wanted to make a family, or to have a family.

So, I just thought Andy would be the perfect one to do so. That's a show called Age Gap Love on Channel 5. As you could see there, they give us the sort of whimsical, heartwarming story of a 45-year-old man who began dating, in quotes, a 16-year-old girl who he'd known since childhood. Channel 5 calls this age-gap love. Another name for it is grooming and abuse. The girl was groomed by a predator, and then she was abused. That's actually what

happened there. Now, she's 19 today. He's, so he's, what, 47? Now, if he as a 47-year-old had just met a 19-year-old, like they just met online or something, and then they decided to get together. Now, that would be weird in my... The really big age gaps, I do find them weird, really no matter who the people are. But it's, it wouldn't be criminal or evil or anything with that. A 19-year-old adult woman is free to date 47-year-old men if she wants to. But that's not what happened here. See, that's the important point.

What happened here is that according to that story, he groomed a young girl over the course of her childhood. He was a friend of her mother, knew her as a child, and then made his move when she was 16 and he was 44. So that's a completely different situation. If you don't think that there's a movement to normalize pedophilia in our society, then think again, because that's what this is right here. Now, yeah, this isn't technically pedophilia. Technically pedophilia is the abuse by an adult of a child who, I think,

think is under, has to be under 12 or something. That's the legal definition of pedophilia. But this is a story of an adult grooming and abusing a child regardless. And as such, it is the normalization of pedophilia. Normalization always happens this way. This is what normalization is. Okay, so if there's going to be a process, a movement of normalizing pedophilia, it's not going to start with someone presenting us a story of a 45-year-old man with his nine-year-old child bride and saying, hey, this is, isn't this great. Let's cheer this on. It's not going to start that way because that's too far, too fast. Everybody will recoil from it. So it's the old boiling a frog in the pot type of thing. It's always going to start, won't you to start on a lower temperature? It's gradual.

So it's always going to start with things that, you know, it starts with something that is where you see it and you go, okay, that's weird, that's gross. It's not against the law, I guess. And then gradually it gets more and more depraved. But the whole trick here among the normalizers is when they start with that first thing where you're like, it's normal, it's gross, it's weird, you know, they start with that. And if they can kind of get you to say, well, who are you to call that gross? And they kind of work on you there. And if they can get you to say, okay, yeah, maybe that's fine. They move on to the next thing.

And your first reaction is, oh, no way. And they work on you there and try to get you to say, okay, yeah, maybe that's fine. And then just you gradually go down the slope. That story you saw there, it's not at the beginning of the slope. This is like we're midway slope, right? I'd say we're about midway to full-on pedophilia is okay type of thing. I'd say we're about midway to that point in our society. The, you know, drag queen's story hours, these, these,

child drag queens that you see, that's also about midway to the slides. And it's actually much further down. It's much closer to the full-on normalization of pedophilia. So that's what's happening. All right. Before we get to emails, I, let's see here.

Okay, I have a question. Before we get to, I just wanted to mention one thing. thing. You know, I said at the top that I am a victim, as you could see, so you should feel sorry for me because I'm crippled. But here's the question that I've been wondering. Maybe you can help me out with this. And you can always email me to let me know what you think. Matt Wallscho at gmail.com. My question is, how many victim points do I actually acquire for being crippled? It's kind of a complicated subject because obviously I start in a hole because I'm a straight white male.

So the way I figure the math is kind of like this. Being white means that I'm at negative 25 victimhood points. Male means another negative 25 and then straight is another negative 25. So I'm in about a 75 point hole just to begin with because I'm a straight white male. But I'm disabled now. So that earns me back. I would say 25. Yet you would point out that my disability is probably temporary. So that detracts 10, meaning I'm only at plus 15 against minus 75, right? So that puts me at minus 60. Yet, if my Achilles heels wrong, or if I get surgery and something goes wrong with the surgery, there is a possibility that I might not ever walk normally again. Now, that would be, I think, worth 25 on top of the plus. 15. So I'm at plus 40 against negative 75, which works out to about negative 35, right? But wait, I'm also part negative Native American. I am part Native American on my mom's side,

I think, maybe. Actually, I just made that up. But it's, I mean, there's a, there's a, there's a great, there's a possibility that I'm part Native American. So let's just say that I am. You can't prove that I'm not. So that's got to be worth something. And I'm also definitely part Irish. And I know being Irish isn't worth much, even though the Irish are among the most persecuted people on the planet historically.

They're also white, so it doesn't count for much. But I think it all adds up to maybe. I mean, that's got to be worth another plus five. I mean, it's got to be five victim points there, right? That combination. The fact that I might be part Native American and I am definitely part Irish. I think I'm part Australian.

Yeah, that doesn't really count at all. But that's got to be worth at least five. So I think it all adds up to maybe let's say plus 45 against minus 75, which equals negative 30. So I'm still not at victimhood status, but I'm doing better than a lot of you. I am closer to victimhood status than most of you straight white devils. That's my point that I'm trying to make. And so you need to acknowledge that and have some deference for that. That's all I'm saying.

Okay, let's check in with emails. Matt Wall Show at gmail.com. Matt Wall Show at Gmail.com. This is from Sarah says, Hi, Matt. I know you have lived and visited various places on the East Coast. Our young family of six

has headed out that way later this summer for the first time. We love learning about the areas we visit and doing things that aren't typically touristy types of activities, but are more hidden gems or local favorites.

That being said, we also have four kids ages ranging from three to 12 years old. We don't know, we don't want to bore them to death in museums all day. Do you have any recommendations of places to visit in the D.C., Maryland, Delaware, Virginia Beach region that would be good for kids of various ages? Also, any family-friendly restaurants, cool ice cream shops, anything else unique or interesting to see. Hi, Sarah. Well,

I appreciate the question. It's kind of a large area. It's like hundreds of miles, so I would need to know more specifically where you're going to be. Like, you need to give me your exact street address so that I can answer that and publish it everywhere. No, if I knew more specifically where you're going to be, I can probably help you out more. I will say if you're going to be on the eastern shore, Ocean City is kind of the spot there. Now, that's very touristy,

but that's in terms of eastern shore you want to go to the beach. A lot of stuff for kids to do there. If you're looking for a less touristy eastern shore beach spot than maybe Bethany Beach, a little bit further up north, again, I don't know where you're going to be. If you're looking for something more historical in the Virginia area, then you could always check out Mount Vernon or Monticello, speaking of Thomas Jefferson.

Now, if this is your first time on the East Coast, and if you like history, then I think you've got to check out at least a couple of the Civil War battlefields because the Eastern Theater of the Civil War, if you're going to be in Virginia, then I think you've got to go, the Virginia, Maryland area, you've got to go check out some of those. But again, it depends on where specifically they're going to be.

If you're a little bit further west, then maybe Antietam. I went there with my wife last year, and that was a great stop. Of course, up further north into Pennsylvania, you could go to Gettysburg. If you are further west and you want scenic views and nature and everything, I would go in the Shenandoah Valley is beautiful, the Lurray Caverns. Annapolis is a nice little city of Maryland, the capital of Marin, a nice historical city. If you are in D.C., then definitely take your kids to the Bible Museum. I know you said no museums, but check out the Bible Museum.

The Museum of Natural History, I mean, look, yeah, if you've never been to the museums in D.C., they are great museums. And Baltimore has, for my money, and I say this as I'm a big aquarium fan. I love aquariums, and I've been to many aquariums in my day. Baltimore has the best aquarium, certainly in the country. And I don't think I'm the only one with that opinion. So I would go there if you're around that spot. And if you're in Delaware, there is a nice ice cream spot in a town called Lewis, Delaware. There's a dairy farm that does its own ice cream.

But that's kind of far from D.C., so it all depends on where you're going to be. but have a great trip. From Chuck, he says, Hey, Matt, you recently talked about how the word Nazi now means anyone who has a political opinion I disagree with. I think this development is a symptom of a broader problem. Our society has lost any notion of gradations.

I see this in our society's excessive swearing, as well as the desire to live a life of highlights on social media. Everything is either zero or 100 with no levels in between. I was wondering what your take was on this. Do you see something similar or am I over generalizing? I love the show and I pray that you don't become discouraged with the hateful messages you receive. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think that this kind of plays into what we talked

about during the show about historical figures and how we need to develop more nuanced views of these historical figures. I think we need to develop more nuanced views in general about everything. And that would certainly make our discussions, our conversations, much more, um, worthwhile and fruitful. Because right now it's just hard to talk about anything because everybody is exactly what you're talking about. Everyone is you're either for or against. It's either great or it's terrible. And there's just there's no room in between. And that's the case even though at the same time everyone likes to say all the time how well it's it's not black and white. There's a lot of gray area. So we like to talk about gray areas. But then, and we like to try to try to

to find gray areas in places where there actually isn't any gray area because sometimes it is just wrong or right. But then when it comes to most conversations, no, people don't want gray areas. They want everything to be very clear, which is especially frustrating. I could tell you for me as a writer, when I try to write a piece and I'm dealing with a controversial subject and I write a thousand words about it, trying in great detail to explain my perspective well, nobody wants to read it. What they want is give me the one sentence summary of your point of view. But it's just not every point of view can be summarized in a sentence.

Sometimes it takes 50 sentences. Sometimes it takes more than one sentence sometimes. But people don't want that. A lot of it goes down to intellectual laziness. And anyway, I agree with you. That's a good point. This is from Riley says, You mentioned your recent injury on your show,

so I just wish to let you know I'll be praying for a speedy recovery for you. I will admit, however, that I'm disappointed that the story to go with it wasn't very cool. Stay strong. Thanks for being a great brother in Christ, respectfully, Riley. Riley, I agree that it's not a cool story. I'm disappointed in that. I always imagine that when eventually I ended up in an emergency room for my own issue, it would be for a really awesome reason.

And that was just not the case. You know, I always imagine, like, my first time in an emergency room, it would be because I was fighting off armed invaders, maybe with a sword or something. I always thought it would be something like that, but instead it was just a pickup basketball game, and that is just a tragedy. This is from John says, hey Matt, it's John, big fan of the show. Each episode is a sigh of relief from this crazy world. That said, I wanted to get your opinion on the Hitchens Razor. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's Christopher Hitchens, obviously.

The reason that I bring this up is because I have found it is a very powerful tool to combating the left due to so many of their claims being completely baseless. Specifically, I've utilized it in combating the pro-choice argument since the Alabama ban the no uterus, no opinion has been kicked into high gear. This has been my argument most commonly. We have agreed that it is not acceptable to kill an innocent human being. So implicit in your argument for abortion is the premise that the unborn fetus is not a life. but simply, I don't believe you. The burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion,

to put it on me, is to shift the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy. So far, I am most commonly attacked for finding God or upholding the patriarchy, to which I reply, first I come for women's abortions rights, then it will be their suffrage. Winky face, sarcasm. I know this is a long email. I thank you for getting to it if you do. I really want to know any flaws in this argument, and if there is any way I can improve it. Yeah, I think the Christopher Hitchin's Razor is interesting because obviously that's something he formulated mainly as an attack on theists. And what he's claiming is that, well, you are proposing the existence of God without evidence. And so I can just dismiss it without evidence.

Now, I disagree with Hitchens Razor in that case because I think that there is evidence for God. So we're not proposing it without evidence. But I agree in general in principle with the principle that if someone does propose something without evidence, then yeah, it can be dismissed without evidence. Because if you are making an assertion, any assertion, if you're coming to the table proposing something for people to believe as true, whatever it is, then you have to be able to give people a reason to believe it.

And the reason can't just be that you said it, because that's not a reason. The fact that it was said is not in itself a reason to believe it. There has to be some other reason. If you can't produce that reason or explain what it is, then yeah, everyone at the table can just say, whatever. and they're perfectly within their rights to do that, and it's rational to do it because you haven't given them any reason to believe it.

And so can that be applied to the abortion argument? Sure, I think it can be, because I would say that the people claiming that the unborn child is not a person, is not a human, have produced no evidence to support that assertion. In fact, all the evidence is against them. we have a lot of evidence to bring to bear to prove that it is. We'll open up any biology textbook about the stages of human development. And what you're going to find is that the fetal stage is a stage of human development because it's a human. So they have no evidence, which means that, right, their argument can't be taken seriously.

So, sure. This is from Mike says the first time you mentioned becoming a beekeeper. I couldn't help think about how dangerous it is to have a beehive around three small children. I'm sure you've carefully weighed the risks and made sure the hive is in a safe and secure location. But as a parent, does it ever cross your mind that something can go seriously wrong that ends up with one of your kids getting hurt? How do the logistics of this beehive set up work that ensure your family safety? Also, who will tend to the beekeeping duties now that you're on crutches? Yeah, Mike, it's bees keep, beehives are very safe, actually, because honeybees, as opposed to

to say wasps or something. Honeybees are docile creatures. They're not aggressive. They're not going to go after you and attack you. They're not really interested in what you're doing. They're just interested in tending to the hive. So they'll go right around you. I mean, you can open up a beehive. And some of the bees will come out to check, see what's going on. But most of the bees will just continue on their business. They're not going to come after you. I don't recommend opening up a be a hive that you don't have a B-suit. So it's really not a danger at all. Of course, we've told our kid, they know where the hive is. I've taken them out. I've shown them to him. They've come out when I've, and stood at a safe distance when I've opened up the hive just to see everything.

And so, you know, you just, you teach the kids. It's like anything else. It's like the chemicals that are under your sink. You know, you teach them. Don't open under the sink. And you know, you just have to knowledge his power. situation. As far as who will tend to the hive now that I'm on crutches, that's a good question. I'm thinking that my six-year-old son is ready to take the dive. I don't have a B suit that will fit him, so he's going to have to really go for it. But like I said, safety first. Finally, from a different Mike says, if a president committed a crime, the proper procedure would be to impeach him, then charge him with the crime. So no president is above the law. It's just a different

process and one that I agree with. Imagine that Trump could be charged with a crime. There's doubt the Democrats will be charging him with jaywalking, littering, disturbing the peace, anything they could just to make him spend his whole term in court fighting bogus charges. Therefore, the president is not above the law. It's just a different process meant to curtail frivolous prosecution. You don't have to be guilty to be charged with anything. Thank you for agreeing with me in advance and have a nice day. Mike, I said yesterday I think that president should be able to be charged with the crime, but you raise a good point. And so I think that I was wrong and that you are right.

Doesn't happen very often. So enjoy the moment. Savor it. But yeah, I think I was wrong about that one. And I will change my point of view. I hope you're proud of yourself, though, for humiliating me a cripple, a man on crutches.

And you would dare humiliate me like this in front of my entire audience. Outrageous. But thanks for the email. And thanks everybody for watching. God's speech. Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Robert Mueller issues his farewell address and Democrats move toward impeachment. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show.