The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 712 - It's Time To Get Over Your White Guilt

Episode Date: April 30, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we often hear, especially from the Left, that slavery is America’s “original sin.” It is the reason why we are supposed to be overcome with guilt as Americans. But today I want talk about this idea of slavery as original sin and explain why it’s totally wrong. Also our Five Headlines, including Biden’s move to ban menthol cigarettes. The Democrats want to defund the police, while also passing more petty laws for the police to enforce. Speaking of the police, a teacher in a zoom call berates a student for saying that police are heroes. We’ll play that for you. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the truly insane and almost unbelievable story of the Jeopardy contestant who issues a public apology after being accused of racism for holding up three fingers.   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, we often hear, especially from the left, that slavery is America's original sin. It's the reason why we're supposed to be overcome with guilt as Americans and constantly apologizing. But today I want to talk about, I want to talk about this idea of slavery as original sin and explain why it's totally wrong. Also, our five headlines, including Biden's move to ban menthol cigarettes. The Democrats want to defund the police while also passing more petty laws for the police to enforce. Maybe a little bit of a conflict there. Speaking of the police, a teacher in a Zoom call berates a sys. student for saying that police are heroes will play that for you.

And our daily cancellation, we'll discuss the truly insane and almost unbelievable story of the Jeopardy contestant who issued a public apology after being accused of racism for holding up three fingers. Talk about that today and a lot more on the Matt Wall Show. Now we're from a new sponsor, Trust and Will, we're very happy to have on the show. And, you know, it's really important because if you're an adult, you have a family, especially. It's extremely important to have a will. This is a moral responsibility to have something that you can leave behind,

to have this all sorted out in case anything happens to you so that your family isn't left dealing with the mess. At trustedwill.com, setting up an estate plant is simple, convenient, and secure. For as little as $39, you can nominate guardians for your children, determine who gets your stuff, and plan for future medical care, all from the comfort of your home. Trusted will documents are designed by estate planning experts and customized for the state you live in.

And with live customer support seven days a week, trust and will.com's team is available to answer any questions that you have while setting up your plan. Trust and will is the most trusted name in online estate planning, the category leader on trust pilot, and they've helped hundreds of thousands of people protect their family assets and legacy. So you can gain peace of mind at trust and will.com.com slash walsh. Get 10% off plus free shipping of your customized legal documents. Don't wait, go right now. Don't put this off anymore. You can put it off for long enough. This is really important. Get 10% off plus free shipping at trust and will.com slash walsh. During Senator Tim Scott's Republican rebuttal to Joe Biden's speech on Wednesday night, he used a term that comes up quite often in our political discourse these days.

He spoke, albeit in a sort of hopeful, positive, forward-looking context about America's original sin. Here's that part again. I am more than hopeful. I am confident that our finest hour is yet to come. Original sin is never the end of the story. not in our souls and not for our nation. The real story is always redemption. The original sin that he's referencing is, of course, slavery. We hear quite a lot about this supposed national original sin, but whereas Tim Scott wants to move on from that sin and live in

the present, most of the people who speak of it don't wish to move on. They want to obsess over it. They want our society to revolve around it. They want to keep our gays directed at it. They want Americans, white Americans anyway, to feel immense guilt for it and to constantly beg forgiveness and to feel only shame when they think of our history as a nation because of it. The message from politicians, the media, Hollywood, the school system, all other institutions, even the church is now, is that America is a country rooted in oppression, racism, and bigotry. And although those sins can never be expiated, we, white Americans, anyway, must keep trying, must keep atoning, must keep groveling on our nuffling.

knees and self-mortification. A couple of days ago, Representative Ayanna Presley, who really hates this country, perhaps more than anyone else in Congress, and there's stiff competition for that title, spoke about the Chauvin verdict, but began with a soliloquy about America's original sin, or sins, and how we still have not overcome those sins even today. Here's what you said. Let me just stop for a moment and just be blunt and talk about how we arrived here. Black lives have not mattered. They've not mattered since the very inception of this country, the original sin of slavery.

And so for that reason, because black lives have not mattered, our humanity has never been seen. That is why our black children are adultified. That is why our skin color is criminalized. That is why our very existence is criminalized. Now, if you're like me, you heard her say, adultified and thought, wait, did she just say adultified? She did. And I now know after Googling it that adultification is when children are exposed to things that are too mature for them and are

treated by society as if they're older than they really are. Now, this is indeed a real problem in our society. I don't think we need a word like adultification to describe it, but it is a real thing. We can start with the fact that many kids as young as eight and nine are accessing hardcore pornography on sites like Pornhub. But as we know, everything has to be about race these days. So the people who use the term adultification or adultified, they usually mean it in a racial context and will claim that it's a problem which especially or only affects racial minorities.

Forget about those dumb white kids. We don't care about them. This is all a problem among racial minorities only. And they're probably right that it does affect racial minority children in a somewhat unique way. Just think of Adam Toledo 13 years old out in the streets at 3 a.m., hanging out with a 21-year-old gangbanger, playing with a loaded gun, shooting at cars. Many such cases in our cities among minority children. But who's to blame for that? If children are exposed to things, they shouldn't be exposed to, and allowed to act in ways.

they shouldn't act, I would say the blame begins with oftentimes the parents who may not be caring for and looking out for their own children. Ayanna Presley and her fellow race hustlers would, however, put the blame on white people somehow. It's our fault if a black father abandons his family and the mother allows her child to join a gang or go out and hang out with gangs at 3 a.m. the rest of what you heard there was equally nonsensical and false. A black person's existence is not criminalized.

Presley is hallucinating, and she's not alone. She's part of the largest group hallucination in history. The entire American left is experiencing it. But back in reality,ville, black people are not arrested and charged with the crime of being black. What you'll find in most every case is that a black person in prison is there because they engaged in some sort of criminal activity. same reason every white person most every white person is in uh is in prison you know it's activity that would be just as illegal if a white person had done it there is no black person currently in jail

on charges of being black that's not happening in america presley is telling fairy tales she may as well be reading us snow white and the seven dwarves her version of reality is about as real as that but what about this idea of america's original sin and I think there's a few points to be made about that. First, no, slavery is not America's original sin. Slavery was a sin, a big one, but it's not America's original sin. The original sin of every American, just like every other member of every other country, is original sin. Our original sin is original sin, at least according to the Christian doctrine.

If you're not a Christian and don't subscribe to any traditional religion at all, then the concept of original sin just makes no sense. The concept of sin generally makes no sense in that case. In fact, if you're a moral relativist, as most leftists are, then morality is determined by culture and environment and by the subjective experience of each individual. And that all means that slavery was not actually a sin to the cultures that didn't consider it a sin. Slavery is a sin now because we see it that way, but it wasn't a sin to the people who did not see it that way. That's the implication of moral relativism. That's the funny thing about moral relativists.

They're the primary ones going back and condemning people in history, but they have no basis upon which to do it by their own philosophy. Most of the evil things done in history weren't really evil by their own way of looking at things because the people doing it didn't see it that way. So to review, if you are a Christian, then you know that our original sin is original sin, as described in the Bible. It predates American slavery. Indeed, slavery is a result of original sin, a product of our fallen nature as humans. It's not itself the original sin. But if you're not a Christian and don't really subscribe to any monotheistic religion at all, then the whole concept

of original sin has no basis and meaning. Whichever way you go, nobody should be calling slavery the original sin. With that said, if slavery is any sort of original sin, it is the original sin or an original sin of the whole human race. Slavery was an institution everywhere across the whole world for thousands of years. Slavery existed in North America all over North America before the white man even showed up. Not just slavery, but slavery in perhaps its most brutal and violent form. As slaves, especially in Meso America, often met their end on the sacrifice stone when their hearts were ripped out of their chests and their limbs were hacked off and sometimes eaten.

America didn't invent slavery. no special or unique guilt for slavery. What's unique about America in relation to slavery is that we abolished it so quickly, less than a century after our official formation has a country, whereas other countries on the globe took millennia to do it. Some places still have not really effectively abolished slavery. See, the real reason that people like Presley call slavery our original sin is because they want to give the impression that we essentially invented the practice.

and some on the left, the really ignorant ones, actually believe that and we'll say so. But that's a lie. It's one of the many lies that has turned us into one of the most guilt-ridden countries on the face of the earth. Few nations are as focused on the sins of its past as we are. Is that because other countries have no sins? Obviously not. Many of them have done much worse and done it for much longer. Yet they live in the present and we stay stuck in the past. Most countries, the functional ones anyway, you know, they have their national heroes, their national myths, their stories, their triumphs, their sources of pride and patriotism.

Even if their heroes weren't perfect and their stories were more complicated than they tend to acknowledge, it's good that they have those things. It provides a sense of shared identity and history. and accomplishment. It grounds them in the present as a people, as a nation. But here we've torn down all of our heroes, tossed out our myths, rewritten the stories, and it's had the intended effect. Which is, instead of binding people together as one nation with a shared heritage and identity, it divides us, balkanizes us, deprives us of what we need to be a real functioning country and society. A nation that hates itself can't thrive and ultimately can't survive. A nation that hates

itself for no real reason. A nation obsessed with sins from centuries ago. Sins that the whole human race shares and yet no other country worries about or talks about. That sort of nation will not only fail to survive, but will be driven into collective madness before the end comes. And that again is the point. It is the intended result. It's what people like Ayanna Presley are trying to do. That's the game. And our only hope is to realize that it is the game and stop playing it before it's too late. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Now check it in with our friends over at Moink. You know, there's a move right now trying to get you to stop eating meat, eat bugs, eat grass and leaves like some kind of cow. I don't have the diet of a cow. I eat the cows, okay? That's what I believe in. And Moink, you know, they deliver grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and wild-caught-alaskan salmon directly to your door,

helping family farms become financially independent outside of big agriculture. So that's a good cause you're supporting, along with getting delicious, delicious meat. Their animals are raised outdoors. Their fish swim wild in the ocean, and Moint meat is free of antibiotics, hormone, sugar, and all the other junk you find in pre-packaged stuff in the meat aisle and everything. Sign up at Moinkbox.com. dot com slash walsh to get a year of ground beef for free and then pick what means you want delivered with your first box that's a good you know at my house we eat like 14 pounds of ground beef a day

literally so that's something we need moink was founded by eighth generation farmer who was featured on shark tank host kevin o'leary said it's the best bacon he's ever tasted i can attest to that it really is so join the moink movement today go to moinkbox dot com slash walsh right now and listeners to my show get free ground beef for a year that's one year of the best ground beef you'll ever taste but for a limited time spelled M-O-I-N-K-box.com slash Walsh. That's moinkbox.com slash Walsh. Yeah, I do realize if you're watching the show right now on dailywire.com or YouTube, you probably noticed that PokedaDohriday, sadly, today, was canceled,

mostly because I forgot the Pocodot shirt. And you know what? I'm not going to apologize for that. I don't think I owe an apology. And here's what's going to happen. I just can't win. this is how persecuted and victimized I am personally, that first I get attacked for wearing the polka dot shirt,

and now I'm going to get attacked for not wearing it. You know, this is the persecution that I suffer, and that frankly all polka dot wearers suffer on a daily basis, and it's not talked about enough. All right, this is from CBS. It says the Biden administration announced this intention Thursday to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored, the menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars,

including menthol, reading now from a statement from the FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock, she says, quote, banning menthol, the last allowable flavor in cigarettes and banning all flavors and cigars, will help save lives, especially among those disproportionately affected by these deadly products.

With these actions, the FDA will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances, of smoking cessation among current smokers and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBT individuals. What? How do we, how do we, how did the LGBT individuals get involved here? So menthol cigarettes, especially popular among black Americans, so that's how, that's, that's how they're included, but LGBT individuals, this is just for left, it's a reflex. Once they start naming the victimized groups, they throw them all in there because

why not? The FDA pointed to study suggesting that a menthol ban would help people quit smoking, noting that menthol makes tobacco more palatable and facilitates progression to regular smoking. The FDA said one study suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would lead to an additional 923,000 smokers quitting, including 230,000 African Americans. And then it goes on. Last year, the House passed a bill banning all flavored e-cigarettes and menthols, but the legislation didn't pass the Senate. The bans will not be put in place immediately since they're subject to a potentially years-long rulemaking process. Matthew Myers, president of the campaign for tobacco-free kids, said that the move would be historic and protecting kids from tobacco addiction and advancing health equity, particularly among black Americans. health equity. Now, there's plenty that could be said about this, but let me focus on one aspect

of this. And I've commented before about the perversity of having specifically our lawmakers constantly attacking and undermining our law enforcers. Because that's the situation. You want to talk about a non-functional society? Well, this is how you get a non-functional society and especially a non-functional government. When you've got the people making laws, throwing the people enforcing those laws directly under the bus for enforcing those laws and dealing with the ramifications. So here is a classic example of that,

where this is a move supported mostly by, I'm sure plenty of Republicans are going to sign on board with it, because they love the nanny state BS also. But this is a move we're getting from the Biden administration and from Democrats, banning menthol cigarettes, and what does that mean? Now, yes, they're going to try to enforce this before it gets to the consumer level. But there's also going to be, we can assume, some consumer level enforcement. What is that going to entail exactly?

Well, who knows? We'll find out. but this is all you're doing is you're giving petty nanny state laws for the cops to enforce on some level. And that's how you end up with a lot of these cases that often are wrongly described as police brutality. The cops are doing their job. They're trying to enforce a law. The person that they're that they're dealing with responds violently. And then the cops have to escalate in response, and then next thing you know, there's rioting in the street. Rinse and repeat over and over and over again. Think about the, what was it, the Eric Garner case in, I think that was in New York. And he died during the process of an arrest. And the crime that he had committed was he was

selling loose cigarettes. Okay, well, that's, now if you don't want the cops, loose cigarettes, meaning he bought a pack and he was selling individual cigarettes. That's against the law, apparently, and at least it was in New York. Now, if you don't want the cops arresting people for that, and if you don't, if you can't tolerate the possibility that even some citizens will die in the process of that enforcement, then don't pass the law. But if you pass the law, I've seen people put it, I think a good way of putting it is, if you don't, if you don't want people to die over this potentially, then don't pass the law.

Doesn't mean we should have no laws. But when you're passing a petty nanny state law, stopping people from selling a, you know, a single cigarette for 50 cents or whatever they're doing, or smoking menthol cigarettes, then don't pass it. That's what Democrats do. They pass a whole bunch of these kinds of laws. They send the cops out to enforce them. Cops do that. And it gets messy. Enforcing laws is a messy deal.

It's not like, and you could say, well, they're just enforcing the law. It doesn't mean you go kill someone. Eric, the lawmakers never said that you should go execute a citizen for selling loose cigarettes. Well, yes, right, but that's not what happened. They're trying to enforce it. The person they're dealing with is resisting that enforcement. And then what do you do? Do you just say, okay, well, never mind.

If you don't want this law to be enforced on you, then we're going to go home. Forget it. Sorry to have bothered you, sir. No, they're resisting. Now the state has to impose its will. If it's not willing to impose its will, then again, the law shouldn't be there. And that's how the escalation happens. And sometimes it gets, it turns deadly.

And often the faults for that doesn't fall on the cops. It can fall on the perp. And it also falls on the lawmakers who made those laws to begin with. All right. It's just like the case. another case Dante Wright. You know, we were told initially, and we know that this is false now, but we were told initially that he was pulled over for having an air freshener in his car.

And people were saying how absurd it is that somebody would be pulled over for that. Well, that's not what actually happened, right? So that was a falsehood. He was pulled over, I think it was, I forget, but there was some other traffic violation that he was pulled over for originally, and then they found out that he had a warrant for his arrest. stemming from an armed robbery and they tried to arrest them as you do with someone with a wanted armed robber. But even if it was, let's just pretend for a minute that he was pulled over for having an air freshener hanging from his car. Well, who would you blame for that?

See, Democrats in the left, they were blaming the cops. Why would you pull someone over for that? They didn't pass the law. If there is a law against having an air fresher hanging from your car, don't blame the cops. Blame the idiots who pass. the law like that? Do we want to, are we saying to cops, we're going to put them in a position where they decide what laws they enforce? Is that the kind of police reform we want? All right, number two, speaking of the cops, a student at Cyprus College was in a Zoom class and he was trying to explain to his teacher why it's okay for cops to be portrayed positively in children's shows and why cops even are heroes. And I don't know, listen to this discussion. This is a student and a teacher.

and you tell me who is the more reasonable one. Which are the people here? If you had to pick one to be the teacher of the class, which one would you choose? Let's listen. I think cops are heroes and they have to have a difficult job, but we have to have their fine life. I'm not, I mean, I'd say a good majority of them.

You have bad people in every business and every part. Yeah, wait, wait, wait. A lot of police officers have committed an atrocious crimes and have gotten away with it and have never been convicted of any of it. And I say for the person who has family members, who are police officers. Yes, I understand. And this is what I believe. This is my opinion.

And this is not popular to say, but I do support our police. We have bad people. And the people that do bad things should be brought to justice. I agree with that. But I think that I'm saying it again. They haven't. Well, I agree with you on that point of they should, right? So what is?

is your bottom line point? You're saying police officers should be revered, viewed as heroes. They belong on TV shows with children. I think they are heroes in a sense because they come to your need and they come and help you and they have a problem just like every other business. But we should fix that. But I think they're heroes. Well, they're a program. I think that's the problem is looking at it as a business because they're actually supposed to protect and serve. Yeah, actually that's, it gets even worse from there. But the question we started with here, who do you think is the more reasonable one in that exchange? If you had to hire one of those people to teach a class, who would you choose?

Because I'm choosing the student. Here he is. Here's the student talking to a college professor and trying to break things down in a very logical way and say, what he's trying to communicate and he did a good job of communicating it is that police, Ising is a noble line of work. Many cops do the job heroically. There are some bad ones and they should be punished. That's it.

That's the whole thing. And this somehow confuses her. She doesn't understand what he's trying to get across. Think about how sad it is. You notice how he qualified the statement. I don't blame him for doing that. But he said, this is not a popular opinion, but most cops do a good job.

He's right, it's not a popular opinion, but this is what is controversial now to say something like that. I can remember 10 years ago, even seven or eight years ago, when everybody thought that. It used to be popular across the whole political spectrum to celebrate police officers. And back in those days,

nobody ever claimed that every cop was good. It's just we generally understood that it's a tough job, society needs people to do this job and we respect the people who do it this is a but you send your kid to college this is what you're paying for plunging into your cell for your child into potentially decades of debt for that all right number three this is from the new york post it says a seven-year-old this is a terrible story a seven-year-old girl was killed and her mother injured after pit bulls attacked them in a North Carolina backyard.

The mother and daughter were taking care of their neighbors, two pit bulls, and at one point they attacked. Garner Police Lieutenant Michael McIver says, this is a horrible tragedy for all involved. Our thoughts and prayers go out to both families and all those who responded. Dogs were reportedly taken to an animal shelter, and it's unclear what sparked the fatal attack. You want to talk about unpopular views?

Here's one of my many unpopular views. that it's, I think it's ridiculous and reckless to own pit bulls. I do think pit bulls should be banned from communities and neighborhoods. You see these kinds of stories every year. Yeah, most pit bulls aren't out-mulling people, but they're, pit bulls are perfectly capable of mawling, especially child to death. And you're just kind of hoping if you have a pit bull that they're not going to be one of the pit bulls that does that.

and how do you achieve that? It's by suppressing their innate, wild, aggressive nature. And if you don't appropriately suppress that, then they're going to mall a child to death. I guess I don't understand why take that risk. There are a couple of dogs, two or three dog species that are responsible for pretty much all of the mallings and all of the deaths. why take that risk if you really feel the need to have a pet in your house why choose one that could if it decides to kill a child in the neighborhood I need a good reason is and if your reason is well I think the animals are cute so

is that a good enough reason to take that risk I just don't I don't get it I don't understand bringing pit bulls your hope and what you always hear from pit bull owners right is, well, my, my pity would never do that. You don't know what your pit bull will do. It's a dog. It's an animal. You know almost nothing about what's going on inside that creature's head. It's a mystery to.

It's a mystery to everybody. It could snap at any time if it wanted to, and if it decides to, it could kill somebody. Or disfigure them for life. I don't see it. I don't see the point. All right. I want to play this for you. One of Chauvin's, one of the,

the jurors in the Chauvin trial was interviewed by CBS. And he said that he felt no pressure to reach a guilty verdict. And here's how he explained his reasoning. Let's watch. Did you feel pressure because you knew the world was watching that, you know, we have to reach a guilty verdict here? Not at all. And I don't think any of us felt like that.

I for sure did not. I for sure did not feel like that. the pressure more so came from just being in the room and being under stress. But it wasn't pressure to come to a guilty verdict. What were you stressed about? What were you all stressed about? We were just stressed about just the simple fact of, I mean, every day we had to come in and watch a black man die.

That alone is stressful. Yes. Okay, so maybe that's true. I don't know. It's what he has to say, of course. The jurors can't come out and say, oh, yeah, only did this because we were under pressure. Obviously, they're not going to say that. They can't say that. So who really knows? I will say that I would find it more believable if he said

something like, yeah, I felt pressure, but we put that to the side and we got down to work. See, that I'd find more believable, but claiming that you felt no pressure, none, felt no pressure at all. While there are mobs in the street, in your own community, that you have to drive by and through on your way home every day, threatening to burn down the city explicitly if there's not a guilty verdict, I just find it difficult to believe that you would feel no pressure at all. Any human would feel pressure. It's not a weakness. I would feel pressure. Any person would feel pressure, whether or not you cave to it is a different story, but you would certainly feel it. So when you hear from the jurors of Australia here now that, oh, no, that wasn't a factor at all.

We didn't even know. We didn't even notice. Eh, I find that very hard to believe. Does that mean, even if they're being dismissive of the pressure and not telling the full story there, does that mean that they reach their conclusion because of the pressure? No, but it's still, it leaves that question unanswered. All right, finally, study finds.org reports this, despite its negative reputation, a new study finds that gossip can actually be a good thing for people to spread. So gossip is good, according to a study. Study authors say gossip isn't just about passing on rumors and saying bad things about others.

In fact, their report reveals it also serves to create social connections and even helps people learn new things and the world about the world that they have an experience for themselves. So gossip is a, it forms social cohesion. it's a good thing, go out and gossip about your coworkers and your neighbors and everything. It's a perfect thing to do. The only reason I read this is that it actually rings somewhat true to me. You know, I've always thought about gossiping, and the reason why gossiping is common among women is that they're more empathetic than men generally. So gossip to me is kind of like the, it stems maybe.

from a positive instinct of empathy. And gossip is kind of the ugly side of empathy. Because when you're gossiping about somebody, even if it's negative, the point is you care about what's going on in this other person's life, even in a negative way. So there's sort of an element of empathy. It's like empathy turned upside down. Kind of like hate is, you know, the other side of love.

Now, for me, I know that I don't gossip at all, really, but I realize that the reason is not because I think gossip is wrong, although I do think it's wrong, it's that I just don't really care what's happening in anybody else's life. So when you come up to me and gossip is, hey, guess what's happening with this person? Yeah, I know it's wrong to gossip, but also I simply don't care what's happening in that person's life at all. So don't tell me about it. That's sort of my defense of gossiping, I guess, in case you were curious about it. All right, let's go to reading the YouTube comments.

This is Engineer or Bust says Matt Walsh's hair is too shiny and prim these days. I miss when he looked like a maniac and was ranting in his car. You know, I like the thing I still look like a maniac and I'm still ranting, even if not in the car. The spirit of those days is still within me. Oh, wait a second. They just put it up on the screen. I forgot I almost, I moved on to the comments. I forgot we had another TikTok video we have to play.

I can't believe I forgot this. Thank you, control room, for reminding me. Yes, we have another TikTok video. It's a tradition now. And there's so many that we've got to play more than one a day sometimes to get all these videos out here. Here's another one. And this is, I believe, an ode to Fauci that we all are now going to experience. Here it is.

Mr. Biden, bring my vaccine. Keep me protected from COVID-19. Tell me the trick to how I might earn a fix of that magic Pfizer or Moderna Biden me a poke They call you sleepy but you're pretty woke I'm so tired of quarantine Mr. Biden Hey Joe

Hey Joe Biden I see Let TikTok videos It's just I think he does the entire song This is the first time I've actually watched the entire thing. I saw one second of it and... Okay, we could turn it off. I still hear it. Please.

Please stop. Get that out of my ear. I watched one second of that, really, and I knew that it was something I had to inflict on the audience. But I hadn't watched more of it and then I just did. I wasn't expecting the sexual undertones there. But there they were. This is... The people who are made...

making these songs about vaccines, their odes to vaccines, and Dr. Fauci, what would they have thought about themselves? Like in the year 2019, if someone had shown them in a crystal ball that this is what they would be doing in a year and a half. It is pretty disturbing stuff, but there you go. You're welcome. All right, moving back now to the YouTube comments. Here's another one. Says, Hey, Matt, love your show. If a man is not attracted to a woman sexually, but they share common interests, why can't they be friends? Well, yeah, we talked yesterday about why men and women can't be friends. But there is some qualification to that statement. Like I said, many women can be friends in certain contexts when it's kind of mediated, right? Married couples are friends, and each member of each couple is friends with each member of the other. So that's the way where men and women are friends. They could get along as friends at work. What I'm really talking about are, you know, a deeper friendship bond, like a fraternal bond.

Is it possible for a man and a woman to have a deeper platonic fraternal bond that involves, especially them getting together one-on-one outside of these kinds of contexts? And there I'm saying, no, it's not really possible. but when it can happen like you're talking about here, what if the man's not sexually interested in the woman? Even there, I don't think it really works. But if it does, it's because, as I said yesterday, it's sort of like the man is seeing the woman as another man.

So he can make it work if he almost sees her that way. If he can fit her into the context of a man-man-man friendship. And that's why you hear. women who talk about how they have a lot of male friends, a lot of times they'll talk, they'll brag about all the manly type things they like to do. Because that's what they have to do in order to fit in, just to sort of pretend to be a man,

at least for the purposes of their relationship. Another comment says, I see no problem with being anti-abortion and also anti-elephant slaughter. Humans are morally more significant than elephants, but elephants are arguably higher on the continuum of living beings, shall we say, than are cows, pigs, or chickens. Yeah, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with any aspect of that. That's not how I feel. I don't really care if people hunt elephants, frankly, but I can totally respect that. As long as you are pro-life for humans,

and you also understand that there is a hierarchy or, as you say, continuum of living beings. But I agree with you that there is an implication there where it's not like, okay, if we say that human beings are the most valuable and the most significant life forms on earth, which they are, it's human beings and then every other life form is lumped together in terms of their importance and value and all of that. But we know that's not the case. I think everybody would agree that, you know, a gorilla is more important than a cockroach.

Almost nobody gets upset when you step on a cockroach. If you just walked up to a gorilla and shot it in the head, I think most people would be upset about that. So, yeah. So I'm fine with that. And then if you say that, you know, as you get higher in that hierarchy, it becomes more morally problematic to kill those animals. Yeah, that's understandable. I think that's a perfectly rational viewpoint.

Was there another one? Okay, here's one more. Says, fine, I'll be banned. But Matt, Matt has entered jerkdom here with his take on children COVID vaccines. The vaccines aren't for keeping the kids from getting sick, therefore making sure those most. mobile petri dishes become a part of herd immunity so their grandparents can visit them again. Stop being a jerk, Matt. You're better than that. No, I'm not, first of all. How could you watch this show and think that I'm better than being a jerk? Have you not been paying attention at all?

And he said, well, will my kids get the shot? Of course, because I don't want them to be the vector that killed off grandma. As for consent, didn't you make the argument a few weeks ago that kids didn't have, don't have the mental capacity of giving rational consent. But for a COVID-19, teen shot, they need to give their consent, a bit duplicitous, Matt. Are you sure you aren't becoming a Democrat? Your selective logic is beginning to make you sound like one. Okay, a few things here. First of all, we were talking yesterday about children who are being signed up for their parents for vaccine trials. Okay, so they're kind of like the lab rats that are being experimented on to find out how it works with kids, what the side effects are, how effective it is. We were talking

specifically about that. And no, I would not sign my kid up for any medical trial, period. I don't care what it is. But then what about once we get past the trials and kids are getting it and everything and it's been deemed safe by the powers that be? Well, a few things here. First of all, you say, well, we want to make sure they don't kill grandma. Grandma can get the vaccine. Hopefully your grandma already has it. So they're already vaccinated. And we know that kids, the studies have shown, not only are kids far less personally affected by it, but they're far less likely to spread it and carry it on. So what is the chance that an unvaccinated child, who is already very low risk for spreading and being affected by COVID? What's the chance that they spread it to a vaccinated, to a fully vaccinated adult?

And that adult then gets very sick. What are the chances of that? Now, I don't know exactly. That's the point. I don't know what the exact percentage point chances, but it's very, very vanishingly low. We do know that. As I've been saying all week, the CDC says that something like of all vaccinated people who have gone on to get to actually contract the virus, it's like 0.008%. So you're going to get your kid vaccinated on the 0.008% chance that they get someone sick.

It's actually probably lower than that because those those. adults who were fully vaccinated and got sick anyway? First of all, how sick did they get? And who did they get it from? We could probably probably not children for the most part. So you're probably talking about a less than 0.008% chance. Are you going to inject this, you know, substance into a child based on that? You're going to make your own decision as a parent. I can tell you me personally as a parent, the answer is no. As you all know, the daily wire has been growing like crazy. Not only do we move the whole company across the country, we also released our first feature film, struck up a movie deal with Gina Carrano and launched a new talk show

hosted by Candace Owens all within the last six months. That's six months of activity. Only imagine what we have to do next. We've been moving at the speed of light over here. So that's why I'm really excited for the future. The company and all of us here at the Daily Wire would like to express our gratitude to you, our audience, for making all of this possible. We want to continue to include you in our future plans. Every day on my show, I talk about a lot of amazing products and services and things you can get from sponsors that I love and use. But we want to know, we want to get to know you better so we can choose our sponsors with you in mind so that, you know, you're not wasting your time.

We're telling you about sponsors that are really going to help you in your life. So please go to dailywire.com slash walsh and fill out my audience survey to tell us a little bit more about yourself. And to sweeten the whole experience, those of you that complete the survey will be entered to win a $1,000 gift card. But you can only take the survey once per DailyWire show. So if you want to increase your chances of winning $1,000, go listen to Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles or Andrew Claven

to get access to their surveys as well. Again, my survey link is dailywire.com slash Walsh. We'd love to hear from you. We'd also love for you to watch Candice tonight. Don't miss tonight's episode where she sits down with Dave Rubin and they discuss everything from the recall election to Caitlin Jenner's run to replace him and much more. Next week, we're changing up the schedule.

Candice will stream on Wednesday for an interview with a very special guest, guest that you're not going to want to miss. So join and stream Candice live on Fridays at 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central, only on DailyWire. And get 25% off a new membership with code Candace at DailyWire.com

slash subscribe. But hurry, the deal's going away soon. So go there now. DailyWire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new Elixir Collection, featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude.

with its own universe. Bold elixir. Sensual. Woody. Woody. Addictive. Magnetic elixir. Sweet and romantic like a lingering touch. Solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy. Ultra concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein. For our daily cancellation today, we must discuss a story that in another time and another place, you would assume as parody. It starts with a man named Kelly Donahue, a contestant on the now Trebekless Jeopardy. Donahue. Donahue, Hugh on Tuesday, appeared on the game show after his third win. While being introduced by the host, he briefly flashed three fingers to the camera. You can see it, three fingers, signifying that he'd won

three times. We know that this is the meaning behind the three fingers because the day before he had flashed two fingers and before that won. Now, I'm no math ways, but I'm starting to sense maybe a pattern here. Now, if you're a normal person, a well-adjusted person, you might see the three fingers, not understand the context and not do any research into the issue because it doesn't matter. Such a person, the normal well-adjusted type, if you see someone hold up three fingers

and doesn't know why, we'll think, oh, well, I guess there's some banal reason why it's holding up three fingers. Hmm, okay, well, I guess I'll just continue on living my life now. But the problem, of course, is that we live in a country overrun by people who are not normal or well-adjusted. Many people, sadly, are emotionally stunted lunatics

with the IQs of doorknops. And so the fact that a guy on Jeopardy held up three fingers became a problem, a controversy, a source of outrage. It was decided by the doorknob clan that Kelly's three-finger salute was actually a secret message to his fellow white supremacist. Kelly Donahue may seem like a mild-mannered Jeopardy contestant, but beneath that facade, he's a skinhead and a terrorist. And we know this because he moved his fingers in a certain way. That's what the mob decided. As the controversy grew, a post appeared on medium, purportedly from a group of former Jeopardy contestants, almost 600 former contestants apparently signed this letter, denouncing Kelly Donahue for holding up three figures. Again, I'm not making this up.

This is not a parody. This is real. This is a lengthy letter posted, apparently signed by 600 people condemning someone. for arranging their fingers in a certain way. The letter first condemned Donahue for apparently saying the word gypsy on Monday. So the day before the three finger assault, he said the word gypsy in response to a clue. The word gypsy is now offensive, apparently. I'm not sure what else you're supposed to call gypsies.

I also don't care. But the gypsy kerfuffle was not the biggest problem. As the letter says, reading now, it says, quote, Tuesday, April 27th, was a more widely felt misstep. During his on-camera introduction, Kelly made a gesture with his hand that the essence claimed was an indication that he had won three games.

He had on previous episodes indicated with one finger and two fingers that he had won one and two games and no reasonable person would have interpreted those gestures differently. However, this gesture was not a clear-cut symbol for the number three. He held his thumb and forefinger

together with his other three fingers extended and palm facing inward and he tapped his chest. This, whether or the first, intentional or not, resembled very closely a gesture that has been co-opted by white power groups, alt-right groups, and an anti-government group that calls itself the three percenters. And a public Facebook post that has since been deleted, Kelly states, that's a number three, no more, no less. His public Facebook profile also features a cover photo of Frank Sinatra making a similar gesture.

This was either erased or made private on Wednesday morning, along with hundreds of public comments on his few jeopardy-related posts. Regardless of his stated intent, the gesture is a racist dog whistle. Some of the first people to notice this were not affiliated with Jeopardy in any way. They were viewers who couldn't believe what they'd seen, captured it on video and shared it on Twitter. Among them were people of color who, needless to say, are attuned to racist messaging and not appreciative that the show allowed this symbol to be broadcast. Oh, but wait, it gets dumber. Continuing, most problematic to us as a contestant community is the fact that Kelly has not publicly apologized for the ramifications of the gesture he made.

If something has been misconstrued, an apology, and a total disavowal of any connection to white supremacist doctrines is called for. Oh my gosh. We saw that gesture, we saw that gesture air on television. We are among the public it affected. And we are a diverse group of people, people of color, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups already live in the United States in a Canada that have structural institutional racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, abelism, homophobia, transphobia, embedded into their history and function. These people deal with microaggressions nearly every day of their lives through words, actions, and assumptions that remind them on a constant basis that they are not the default, they are not the mainstream, they are not

real citizens. And that is hard enough. That is enough for them to bear and enough for us to keep trying to recognize, to address, and to fight. That is already a series of walls and fences that keeps us from truly reaching the American ideal of e pluribus unum. We cannot stand up for hate. We cannot stand next to hate. By the way, this is all still about the fingers. Okay. We cannot stand on stage with something that looks like hate. We are ashamed to be associated with brands and identities that suffer the taint of hateful statements and actions, particularly if they go unchallenged by those at the top. All right. It's hard to know where to begin in dissecting this abject madness.

In encountering the leftist mindset, I feel much as I feel when walking into one of my kids' rooms and seeing the chaos of toys and debris strewn all over the place, I don't know where to begin in cleaning it up. Fortunately, I don't have to. I tell them to do it. It's their room knowing full well that they're just going to stuff everything under the bed. I have a don't ask, don't tell policy on those sorts of things.

Just get the mess out of my sight. I don't care where it goes. Mommy feels differently. You know that if she's telling you. But for me, just I don't want to see it. Any case, back on subject. In trying to sort through the mess of leftist psychosis on display here, I suppose we could start with the fact that the three finger symbol is not a white power symbol and never was.

The left simply decided at some point that it is or should be and announced that heretofore, if you arrange your fingers in that way, you're a racist, whether you meant to be or not. We could also note the truly diabolical lunacy inherent in the idea that intent doesn't matter. The outraged members of the contestant community, the newest marginalized group on display on the scene here, maybe they'll get added to the LGBT acronym, you know, LGBTQIACC for contestant community. But they say that even if he didn't mean to flash a white power sign, he should still apologize for their misinterpretation. Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite. If you wildly misconstrue someone else's meaning and intent and accuse them of saying something, they didn't say, it's you who should apologize.

You're at fault. I don't have to apologize to you for your false accusations against me. We might also mention the incredible fragility demonstrated here. We hear so much about white fragility, but what can we say about a person who feels traumatized and attacked by the number three? And how do these people ever watch Sesame Street? Today's number is number three. They go screaming out of the rooms, hide under the bed, make it stop. What is there to be said about people who are suffering PTSD because of the way a jeopardy contestant positioned his fingers?

This is a maniacal level of fragility. These are people who in saner times would be committed to asylums. I'm not even kidding. These are people who should be in lunatic asylums. They are psychotic. Now, these are all things that we might say if we wanted to defend Kelly Donahue from these outrageous attacks. But I have a policy that I've told you before about defending people from the cancel mob. I only defend those who are willing to defend themselves.

And there's a reason for that. I can't defend you if you're going to kneecap me in mid-defense by apologizing for doing the very thing that I was just defending. And so I can't defend Donahue, sadly. I can't defend him because of this, which he posted to his Facebook yesterday. Here's what he said. I'm truly horrified with what has been posted about me on social media. I absolutely, unequivocally condemn white supremacy and racism of any kind. People who know me personally know that I'm not a racist, but for the public at large, it bears a peating. I am not a racist, and I reject and condemn white supremacy in all forms of bigotry for the evil they are. It's shameful.

me to think anyone would try to use the stage of jeopardy to advance or promote such a disgusting agenda. During the taping of my fourth episode, I was simply raising three fingers to mark my third win. There was nothing more I was trying to indicate. I deeply regret this terrible misunderstanding. I never meant to hurt a soul, and I assure you, I am no friend of racist and white supremacists. I removed the previous post because the comments were more than I could bear. I stand by the statements itself, and you could find it reported in other media. I did, however, understand the fair criticism that I didn't include a forceful condemnation of white supremacy. in my initial statement, I hope my feelings of that matter are clear now. Okay. Well, Kelly, you're on your own, bud. With that, you're on your own.

Not going to get a defense. Not going to get any sympathy. Because I am tired of this. I'm tired of it. I know it can be overwhelming when you've got thousands of people coming after you, accusing you being racist, saying all these things that aren't true. Happens to me a lot. But we need to require. choir of each other, a little bit of a spine, just a little bit, not asking for much, apologizing and barking on command like a dog, because these scumbags told you to, condemning white supremacy, like there's any reason for you to do it as if there was ever any indication at all that you're a white supremacist? No. Now, you know, now I lump you in with them. Now I feel the same way about you as I do about the rest of them.

I do. Here's the thing. When you apologize for something, you admit guilt. Now, you're not guilty, obviously. All you did was hold up three fingers. But you've admitted guilt for something you didn't do. Because you can't apologize for something. You can't actually apologize for something that you didn't do, right?

The apology doesn't mean anything. it's like if someone you know if bob comes up to you and tells you that jim just punched him in the face are you going to say oh i apologize for that what do you you didn't do it what are you apologizing for or better yet because in this case nothing happened at all it's better if someone if someone comes up to you and says that um you know and and accuses you of sending your invisible dragon over to their house to burn it down and you say oh oh oh I apologize for that. You didn't do it.

So by apologizing, you're in order to apologize, you must admit guilt. It comes with the territory. Inherent in the apology is an admission of guilt. And that's why it becomes impossible to defend you. You said you were guilty, basically. Now, the appropriate response to this, Kelly,

is to say, to the people accusing you of this, F you. I apologize for nothing. You people owe an apology to me, you lunatics. And by the way, I'm going to sue you for defamation. I need all of you personally to apologize to me publicly and beg for my forgiveness or I will not stop until I have bankrupted you all in court. That's what the response should have been. But it wasn't.

So Kelly Donahue was canceled. All the people trying to cancel him are canceled. And again, we end the week with a round of cancellation for everyone, which is always a fun way to end it. All right. We'll leave it there for today. And for the week. Have a great weekend, everyone.

See you on Monday. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, the Benchapiro show, Michael Knowles show, the Andrew Clavin Show. Thanks for listening.

The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Our technical director is Austin Stevens. Production manager Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production is McKenna Waters. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright DailyWire 2021. Hey everybody, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to

blood. But on the Andrew Claven show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Claven show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Claven.