The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 780 - Bank Of America Thinks Your Toddler Is Racist

Episode Date: August 20, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Bank of America is the latest major corporation to institute a radical racial reeducation program for its employees. This is perhaps the worst one yet. Also, American citizens in Afghanistan, according to a report, have to pay for the privilege of being evacuated from the country. And Jamaicans protest the US embassy for flying a pride flag. The social media mob digs up dirt on the new Jeopardy host for some reason. And in our daily cancellation, we will discuss Mark Zuckerberg’s plan to turn Facebook into a virtual reality experience. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.  Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF 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, Bank of America is the latest major corporation to institute a radical, racial re-education program for its employees, and this is perhaps the worst one yet. Also, American citizens in Afghanistan, according to a report, have to pay for the privilege of being evacuated from their country, and Jamaicans protest the U.S. Embassy for flying a pride flag, which is pretty great. Also, the social media mob digs up dirt on the new jeopardy host for some reason, because, of course, we've got to find some dirt on him. And in our daily cancellation, we'll discuss Mark Zuckerberg's plan to turn Facebook into a virtual reality experience. It's pretty horrifying.

All of that and more today on the Matt Walls show. Now a quick word from Pearl Source. You know, Pearl Source, if you're looking for, especially guys, if you're looking for a source for a gift for your mom, for a birthday, your wife, anniversary, whatever it is, pearl source is the way to go. At the Pearl Source, you get the highest quality pearl jewelry at up to 70% off retail prices. Why? Because the Pearl Source cuts out the middleman by eliminating traditional markups by jewelry

stores and selling directly to you and those markups can be you know three four five times the markup so you're cutting that out and you are getting the product directly they have the largest selection of pearls available anywhere in the world and each jewelry piece is custom made for you the pearl source offers fast and free two-day shipping on every single order everything comes beautifully packaged in an elegant jewelry box so it's ready to be given as a gift not sure if she'll love your gift well no worries the pearl source comes with a no hassle 60-day money-back guarantee so it is all risk-free don't overpay for jewelry, go to the Pearl Source and save up to 70% off of retail prices. Also, the Pearl Source

is having their end of summer sale going on right now. And for a limited time, listeners to my show can get an additional 15% off the discounted prices. So it's 50% off off the already discounted prices. Go to the Pearl Source.com and enter promo code Walsh to checkout for 15% off your entire order. If you want fine pearl jewelry at the best prices online, then go straight to the source, the Pearl Source, thepeorce.com, and enter promo code Walsh at checkout. out. Quick note of thanks to all of you who have helped this show grow tremendously. Not long ago, I was in my car, shouting at my dashboard, filming a show that 12 people were listening to, six of them were in my family. But today, last I checked, we've climbed into the top 40,

among all podcasts, just on Apple Podcasts alone. We're top 10 in our category. We've also had incredible growth on YouTube, Spotify, all other platforms. All this to say, thank you for making this happen. And also, I am not satisfied. I want more. My Theocratic Fascist Take over hasn't even begun, really. So please, if you haven't yet, subscribe on Apple Podcasts on YouTube or both or whatever, whatever platform you like, share with your friends, tell the world, our mission is not finished yet. All right, as, you know, the conversation continues to revolve around the crisis in Afghanistan and perhaps will remain focused there for the foreseeable future, it'll be even easier now for the most powerful corporations in our country to get away

with imposing their far-left Marxist agenda. They were already having little trouble in that regard, but at least sometimes they would face public criticism. Criticism significant enough in some cases to convince them to change course. I mean, when Coca-Cola instated a racial indoctrination program, they were eventually forced to put it on pause, pause, quote-unquote, as they say, and their top lawyer resigned in disgrace following this massive backlash from the public.

Now, Coca-Cola will find other ways, I'm sure, to enact their agenda, but it's good that they were held to account for whatever it's ultimately worth. Bank of America, on the other hand, has had the good fortune of having its own radical awoke agenda exposed while everyone's attention is focused on a country 7,000 miles away. But as this report from journalist Chris Rufo exposes, their racial re-education program is among the most aggressive and malignant that we have seen. Reading now from the City Journal, it says,

Bank of America Corporation has implemented a racial re-education program that claims the United States is a system of white supremacy and encourages employees to become woke at work, instructing white employees in particular to decolonize their minds and seed power to people of color. Earlier this year, Bank of America's North Carolina and Charlotte Market President Charles Bowman announced a new equity initiative called United inaction in partnership with the United Way of Central Carolina. according to documents I have obtained from a whistleblower, this is Chris Rufo talking, B-O-A executives launched the initiative by encouraging employees to participate in their racial equity 21-day challenge, a race training program funded in part by the bank and built on the principles of critical race theory, including intersectionality, white privilege, white fragility, and systemic racism. Now, before we go any further, I think it's worth referring back again to the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, which describes. unlawful workplace harassment. And here's what they say. Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the age discrimination, an Employment Act of 1967, and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, older age, beginning at age 40, disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where, one, enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment or two, the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating,

hostile, or abusive. Now, all of these racial indoctrination programs are, for this reason, blatantly illegal, clear violations of the Civil Rights Act. Employees are being singled out by race, labeled in negative ways based on their race, and often these sessions are mandatory, even when they're not mandatory, they still create an environment that is clearly intimidating and abusive. When you're pointing to certain employees by race and saying they're privileged, they're racist, they're this and that,

there's a reason why employees leak these materials to the media because they feel that this is a hostile environment and it's an intimidating environment, an abusive environment. None of this even so much as pretends to be legal. Yet companies do it anyway, in part because few of the workers subjected to this stuff ever decide to actually sue. So let's go back to the report for more details. It gets worse. It says, on the program's first day, Bank of America teaches employees that the United States is a racialized society that uses race to establish and justify systems of power, privilege, disenfranchisement, and oppression, which, quote, gives privileges to white people resulting in disadvantages to people of color.

According to the training program, all whites, regardless of one's socioeconomic class background or other disadvantaged, are living a life with white skin privileges. Even children are implicated in the system of white supremacy. According to the program materials, white toddlers develop racial biases by ages three and five, three to five, and should be actively taught to recognize and reject the smog of white privilege. It goes on to say over the next three days,

Bank of America teaches employees about intersectionality, unconscious bias, microaggressions, and systemic racism. The program research, quote, racism in America idolizes white physical features and white values as supreme over those of others. As a result of being part of the dominant culture, whites are more likely to have more limited imagination, more likely to experience fear, anxiety, guilt, or shame, more likely to contribute to racial tension, hatred, and violence in our homes, communities in the world, and subsequently, to react in broken ways as a result. People of color, on the other hand, cannot be racist

because racism is used to justify the position of the dominant group and to uphold white supremacy and superiority. Therefore, the discussion guide claims reverse racism and discrimination are not possible. Okay, so nothing to see here. No problem, really. Just the second largest bank in the country with $2 trillion in assets instructing its employees that members of a certain race are fearful, hateful, violent, lack imagination, and give birth to children who become bigots themselves by the age of three. And it's only white children who are bigots. Who could object to that? Well, not many people have objected to this, as it turns out.

The American Bar Association certainly doesn't object, as another report also from this week reveals, this is from the Washington Free Beacon. Again, this is all just from this week. It says the American Bar Association is poised to mandate diversity training and affirmative action at all of its accredited law schools. A move top legal scholars say could jeopardize academic freedom and force schools to violate federal law. The association, which accredits nearly every law school in the United States, is mulling a plan who would require schools to provide education to law students on bias cross-cultural competency and racism, including a mandatory ethics course instructing students that they have an obligation to fight racism in the law.

Schools would also be required to take effective actions to diversify their student bodies, even when doing so risks violating a law that purports to prohibit consideration of race or ethnicity. Now I go back now to that Bank of America discussion, the discussion guide, which made the familiar claim that reverse racism and reverse discrimination do not exist. Now, they're correct, of course, but not for the reason they think. There is no reverse racism. There's just racism. Just like there's no such thing as reverse hatred or reverse jealousy. There's just hatred and jealousy.

A racist black person is not reverse racist. he's simply racist. But Bank of America, remaining dutifully orthodox and loyal to the CRT cult, says that there cannot be a racist black person. Why is that? Because racism is a tool of the dominant group. You have to have institutional power in order to be racist. And black people have no institutional power, they say.

And yet, even if I agreed with that definition of racism, which I don't because it's fabricated and ridiculous, yet still, this is Bank of America we're talking about. among the racial indoctrination programs that have been exposed just this week, we have one of the largest banks in the country and the American Bar Association. Bankers and lawyers. Can you get more institutionally powerful than that? The bankers and lawyers are condemning Whitey. So are the big tech companies, almost all the major corporations, Hollywood, media, academia, the government.

So when you hear that the institutions of power, are racist against minorities, understand that the person making that claim is referring to the institutions of power aside from literally all of the institutions of power. Because all of the institutions of power are fully on the side of the person making that claim to begin with. The racial warriors on the left are the system. I mean, they are the man. Now, I think a good rule of thumb is this.

you are not a counterculture radical if you're preaching the same thing that's preached in Bank of America you know, HR seminars. Pretty good indication. If what you're saying is indistinguishable from what you would hear in an HR seminar at Bank of America, then you're certainly not counterculture. Generally speaking, if nearly all of the richest and most powerful people and institutions in the country agree with you and you agree with them, then you may be right or you may be wrong, you're wrong in this case. But whatever you are, you certainly are anything but a rebel. Hopefully we could agree at least with that. Now let's get to our five headlines. Well, gee, you know one thing I hate, you know what I hate doing more

than anything in the world? I hate going to the auto parts store. I don't know if I've ever mentioned this to you before, but I think I mentioned many times because I just hate. I hate going into the auto parts store. There's something about it because it's hot out. And also you walk into the auto parts store and I don't know anything about what I'm doing there. So they start asking me a bunch of questions. I don't know the answers to the clients. It's very embarrassing. I run out crying. It's happened so many times. This is why I just stick with rock auto.com. Rock auto.com is so much than walking into a store and having to answer all of those questions. Rock auto.com always offers the lowest price as possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear.

Why spend, you know, twice as much on the same product? You spend twice as much for a more limited selection of products. Why do that when you can just go to rockado.com? They're a family business. They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. Go to rockato.com right now to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. The catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate. Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands and specifications, prices you prefer. So go to rock auto.com right now. See all the parts available for your car truck. Right Walsh in there. How did you hear about a spot so they know that we sent you? So we'll start here back to Afghanistan, or at least the people who are trying to escape Afghanistan.

This is from the Daily Wire. It says according to a report from the Daily Caller News Foundation, the Biden administration is continuing to tell Americans trapped in Afghanistan that if they want to be evacuated out of the country, they have to pay a cost that could exceed $2,000. And this comes hours after a spokesperson for the State Department told the media otherwise. So for the privilege of being evacuated from that hellhole, you have to be a person. to actually pay $2,000 or more. The Daily Caller News Foundation did some digging into the online forms that individuals are required to fill out if they want to secure a spot on the repatriation flight.

The form requires users to select, I understand and wish to continue with this request for the following two questions. One, repatriation flights are not free. All passengers will need to reimburse the U.S. government for the flight. A promissory note for the full cost of the flight, which may exceed $2,000 per person, must be signed by each adult passenger before boarding. And also loan repayment,

while my passport will not be canceled. U.S. citizens who have signed a loan agreement for repatriation may not be eligible for a new passport until the loan is repaid. So the federal government, as it stands right now, according to this report, they're not willing to spring for the $2,000 to get these American citizens out of the country. If they even get them out of the country to begin with, because let's keep in mind, the first part of that trip is they're on their own for. To get to the airport, which right now seems to be basically impossible because it's surrounded by the Taliban.

So if you can manage on your own as American citizens to get to the airport, the Biden administration is not going to help you. Not going to guarantee your safety. You could die. That's up to you. That's your problem. The Biden administration says, if you get there, then we're going to give you a bill for $2,000 just to bring your. home. Pretty, it seems like they're being very conscious of the budget, apparently, very budget conscious. Except that, I mean, what are we doing here? We've been handing out checks left and

right for thousands of dollars to Americans here who, for no reason, just giving it to them as a reward for the fact that there was a pandemic. Doesn't matter if, you know, some of them lost their job, but even if you didn't lose your job, you still get the check. canceling rent, spending trillions of dollars on these kinds of entitlement programs. And yet the federal government can't manage to come up with the scrounge together $2,000 a person to get these people home from Afghanistan. And I mean, why is that? Well, it's pretty obvious that handing out these kinds of entitlement checks to Americans here is politically useful. but up to this point they haven't seen a lot of political use in doing the same for the people that are trapped in Afghanistan.

Maybe that will change, though. I would have to think that their political calculations are changing. All right, moving on, here's something pretty interesting. The U.S. Embassy in Jamaica is among the many embassies across the world right now that's flying a pride flag. We know even the embassy in Kabul was flying a pride flag, which we could assume at this point has been taken down. Well, they put one up in Jamaica, and some Jamaicans are not happy about that. They say that they don't want the pride flag flying. In fact, they say that it's cultural imperialism.

And I think they kind of make a good point. Let's listen to them. And as you might be able to see in the background, the U.S. Embassy continues to fly, the LGBT flag, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender flag. in breach of the Vienna Convention, Article 3.1E, Article 20 and Article 41, right? They are being hostile towards our laws, our culture, and our own democratic system. Instead of flying the Jamaican flag for emancipendance, they have decided to fly that flag, and that is an insult to our country. Philippa Davies, advocacy officer for the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society,

says the flag represents life practices that threatens the Jamaican culture and the teachings of the Bible. She says it also affects the health of the society. You have to understand what that multicolour flag represents. It represents normalizing perverse sexual behaviors and lifestyle choices. Behavours and lifestyles that lead to disease and death. Our Christian duty is to speak the truth in love. Protesters say they have been peacefully protesting

that the flag be taken down since the day it was raised. But our shock, it remains on the flagpole up to Mancey Pendence, week. Efforts to contact the U.S. Consulate and a member of the LGBT group on Friday proved futile. However, the protesters say they will continue to stand against the

flying of the rainbow-colored flag, describing it as a symbol of disrespect on Jamaican soil. Article 20 specifically says the only flag that should fly is their national flag. The LGBT flag is not their national flag. Their own people have not agreed to that at all.

Okay? Well, they raised some good points, I would say. And there's no response to that. The left has no response. All they could do is ignore this kind of thing. Because if they were to meet that head-on and offer a response, the response would be something like, well, this is not your value system, but it should be. This should be your value system.

Because, of course, I mean, we're so used to it by now that, that may, Maybe we don't stop and reflect on just how crazy this actually is that U.S. embassies are flying any flag other than the American flag. I don't even care what flag it is. Why are you flying? Why is the American government flying any flag, anywhere, other than the American flag? The federal government should be flying no flag except the American flag. Should be showing no loyalty to anything but its own country.

And then to consider what that flag is. Flag showing pride in certain sexual orientations? This is what our embassies are doing? A flag to show pride in homosexuality or transgenderism? No matter how you even feel about that. Why is a federal government? What does a federal government have anything to say about that? at home or especially abroad.

It's insane. And then meanwhile, we're flying this flag to promote a value system that many Americans don't share to begin with, but promoting it in countries that certainly don't share it. And if they're flying the American flag anywhere that is not a Western country,

I mean, anywhere, then they are promoting this value system. They're imposing this value system on people who do not share it and don't want it. So what are you going to do? Are you going to, I mean, someone should go down there and explain to these people. No, you don't, yeah, you don't believe in this. This is not your value system, but it should be. We will tell you what your value system should be. No, on the left, when they worry about cultural appropriation or cultural imperialism, you hear these kinds of phrases from them. But they're worried about, I mean, there was some ridiculous woman, I think some journalist this past week who was upset on Twitter

because a white woman had made a cookbook on how to make dumplings. She had made a dumpling cookbook. And there was some leftist who was upset about this. So what is this white woman making a cookbook about dumplings for? Well, probably she made the dumpling cookbook because she's good at making dumplings and shows she had some advice on how to do that. But that is cultural imperialism, according to the left. To make a food item that arguably originates somewhere aside from the continental United States. That's the kind of appropriation and cultural imperialism they're worried about. Meanwhile, we're overseas flying pride flags, trying to impose this value system on people who do not want it.

All right, this is from Pew Research Center. Kind of concerning, I would say. It says amid rising concerns over misinformation online, including surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, especially vaccines, Americans are now a bit more open to the idea of the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online. And a majority of the public continues to favor technology companies taking such action, according to a new Pew Research Center survey, roughly half of U.S. adults, 48 percent, Now say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content. According to the survey of 11,000 adults conducted July 26th through August 8th.

That's up from 39% in 2018, which is a pretty large jump. Now, of course, all the familiar grains of salt have to be taken here because this is a Pew Survey. but half of the country having this view sounds about right to me. Not too surprising, but it is pretty disturbing. Because what you have among these Americans, not only are they not valuing their own freedom, but just an incredible amount of stupidity, incredibly stupid, that they haven't thought this through at all. They answered the survey question, but they haven't thought about this beyond surface level.

You want the government to be in charge of restricting false information. Okay, what does that mean? It means the government is deciding. The government is now the arbiter of what is true. That's how the question should be phrased. Do you think that the government should be the arbiter of truth? Do you trust the government to tell you what is true and what isn't? Should the government be the, should they be the ones to decide what is true and what isn't?

that's really the question. And these morons, which would include, according to this survey anyway, half of the country, are perfectly willing to give that power to the government. Meanwhile, many of these same people would tell you with a straight face that at least for the previous four years, our government has been run by a fascist dictator who's literally worse than Hitler. So that's the kind of mistrust they have of the government on one hand, that they think it's within the realm of possibility for a, you know, a Hitlerian dictator to take charge of it.

And that was the case for the past four years. And yet they also trust the government to tell them to decide what is true and what isn't. Because this should be obvious, but we have to keep repeating it. You know, the issue, one of the many issues with the government censoring and restricting misinformation or so-called false information is that someone has to decide what is false and what's misinformation. And you're giving that power to the government. All right, moving on, there have been a series of attacks in Chicago by roving gangs of teenagers, and we've got a local news report on one of the latest attacks. A woman was beaten by a group of teens, mostly boys, it would seem.

And she's in critical condition now. She's got a fractured skull, lacerations, loss of damage. Here's the report on that. A ride-chair driver gave us this video. Look closely at the intersection as the driver pulls up to the red light here at Jackson and State around 1130, Saturday night. You can see the woman is being dragged. You can also hear her screaming. A man in a white shirt tries to help her. He starts to fight with the teens that are attacking her. As the woman gets up and starts to walk away, watch as one of the teens grabs what appears to be a bag

that was left on the street. He calmly walks away with it. The woman gets up and tries to walk. She stumbles, then collapses to the ground. The man in the white shirt again comes to help her as some of the teens ride away on divvy bikes. As the ride-share driver goes through the intersection, look to your right. Some of the teens with bikes are making their way down the stairs to a CTA platform. This incident is one of five attacks on people in the loop between Saturday and Monday. Police say in each case, groups of three to 12 teens go up to victims and demand to have their belongings. The victims are then surrounded and beaten by the teens using their hands and feet until the victim gives up their property.

Nothing new there in Chicago. Eventually, maybe we all see these stories all the time, places like Chicago and Baltimore and every other major city in the country. this kind of violence that, ostensibly they're doing it to rob the woman, which is bad enough on its own. But it's pretty clear that it's not really even about taking her belongings. I mean, that would be horrible.

That would be better than what is the reality, and the reality is that they're just doing it for fun. And taking the purse is sort of a prize at the end of it. Icing on the cake for them, really. really it's simply the thrill of victimizing an innocent person and beating them for the sake of it eventually maybe we'll get around asking the question of how are we raising kids what's going on in a child's life and these are not these are not children these are you know i would call them young adults but what's going on in a child's life that they would turn into that i mean when you look at cities across the country and you see these violent thugs with just no conscience at all. Committing these acts of brutality and barbarism for the fun of it.

How does that happen? How do you end up with that? But these are the conversations we can't have. So usually we're just going to talk about if there was a gun involved, there's a reason we're not hearing about this at all in the mainstream media. I mean, local media is talking about it. Mainstream media, national media is not talking about it. Because there's no gun involved here.

They just use their fists and whatever other obvious. whatever other blunt instruments they have around to beat unsuspecting women with. If there's a gun and they'll talk about the gun and how did it end up that these kids got their hands on a gun? But even then, we're not going to talk about, well, it's okay, they got their hands on a gun. What prompted them to use it in that way? You had a case last week. I don't remember what city it was in. I want to say it was maybe New York.

And this was caught on camera. There was a fight outside of a shoe store about shoes. And one of the employees from the shoe store came out to try to disperse things, courageously, really, and he was shot and killed. You did hear a little bit about that because of the gun. And so we're told, well, he had a gun. How did this young man get this gun? Gun violence is a big problem.

That's not really my question. My question is, okay, he had the gun. Why would he want to use it like that? What's going on in his mind? It would make him want to kill another person. person over a fight over shoes. That's the real question. That's the, that's the discussion we simply can't have, apparently. I also want to know what's going on the minds of these people. This is from the Daily Wire. It says, newly named Jeopardy host, Mike Richards, is under fire

for resurfaced comments he made that some critics are calling sexist and racist. Pop culture outlet The Ringer first reported Thursday that between 2013 and 2014, as the host of the podcast, Random, Richards referred to his female co-host as a, and I'm, I'm quoting now, as a booth ho, a booth institute, and booth slut, and said, women in one-piece bathing suits look really frumpy and overweight. In other episodes, Richards made disparaging racial remarks, referring to Jewish people, he said of a woman's facial features, Ixnay on the O'sne, she's not an Ujj. In a separate incident, when his co-host described issues she was having with her apartment, he asked if she lived in Haiti, adding, doesn't it sound like that, like the urine smell, the women in the moo-moo,

the stray cats? And there were other comments like that that he made on his, this was a podcast that no one's ever heard of from about eight years ago. And what we're told is that these comments resurfaced. They just kind of bubbled to the surface on their own. That happens sometimes. But that's not actually what happened, of course. There's no resurfacing. Someone had to go and dig through this podcast from eight years ago that no one's ever heard of or new existence. to find these comments. And that raises the question of why. What's the point?

The comments he made, and I don't know anything about Mike Richards. I don't care who hosts Jeopardy. It's not Alex Trebek, so there's no one that can fill those shoes, unfortunately, for me. And I used to be a big Jeopardy fan, but for me it's lost almost all of its charm now that Alex Trebek is gone. So I don't care who hosts it.

It doesn't matter. I have no interest in defending Mike Richards. What do I care? I'm sure he's already, you know, I'm sure he's already broken down onto his knees and apologized. And if he hasn't yet, then I'm sure he will, because that's usually the way these things go. So it doesn't matter much to me. The comments he made in the podcast eight years ago, were they objectionable? Yeah.

But what's going? Why would someone had to hear the news that some guy named Mike Richards is going to be the host of Jeopardy? And then say, I'm going to comb through this guy's past. I'm going to go through hours and hours of tape, and I'm going to find, I'm going to find something. I'm going to see if this guy has ever said or done anything bad so that I can destroy him, because he's going to be the host of jeopardy. Now, I understand if someone is running for political office, that's the way the game is played. The people on the other side, his rivals, want to destroy him.

I get that. That's the way that goes. That's the way it's always gone in politics. This is about the most apolitical position a person could possibly hold the host of Jeopardy. So what would compel you to go digging for that in the first place? Well, it's just this is the reaction now that a lot of people have. You see someone in the news and their head is rising above the pack a little bit. Something good is happening to them.

This guy gets to be the host of Jeopardy. I'm sure it's a lifelong dream of his. Maybe not. but it's a big deal for him. And so the immediate reaction from a lot of people in this diseased culture of ours is to say, let's try to destroy that guy. I don't know him.

I got nothing personally against him. He's ever done anything to me. But let's ruin his life. Let's not just take his job away. But for the crime of being given this opportunity and having good fortune befall him, for that crime, for the crime of being a fortunate person,

we are just going to ruin him. And that's what they've done. It is a, you know, if that's your instinct to do that, you need to look deeply within yourself to figure out what's going on in your own heart, that that would even occur to you. I heard the news that Mike Richards was going to be a Jeopardy host. It never occurred to me to wonder about offensive things he said in the past.

I probably would have assumed that he said offensive things in the past because everybody has, never would occur to me to go check. And if I had checked for some reason and I discovered that, you know what I would have done? I wouldn't have told anybody. Because I'm not looking to just destroy people for no reason. If that's how you get your rocks off, if that's how you, if that's your form of recreation and entertainment, you need to look within yourself and inside your own soul. All right. Finally, it's been a while since we played a crazy person on TikTok, but we're going to do this.

This is a preschool teacher talking about her experiences. on the first day of preschool. And let's just watch. Story time. This has been my first year in preschool with a class of my own, teaching alongside another queer neurodivergent educator, and we have been rocking our two's class.

We've been talking about gender and skin color and consent and empathy and our bodies and autonomy. It's been fabulous. But our teaching team is shifting and a new person is being on boarded to someone with many years of experience. So today at the lunch table, when the topic of gender and genitals came up, one of our students plainly looked up and said, well, I'm a girl today. But I know that teacher co isn't.

No, they're envy. And the look on the incoming teacher's face was priceless. She was shocked in a good way. And she just looked around at the two of us and said, this class is incredible. And I am so impressed. They're really trying to make neurodivergent happen, aren't they? I'm hearing that phrase more and more now. I don't mean to discriminate at all, but that's not who I am.

That's not me. But if you notice that your child's preschool teacher has five piercings on each ear and a nose ring, that's a problem. Really the nose ring at all. These are the red flags and the warning signs you have to look out for. Or really, we could take a step back. We could step back farther than that because the actual warning sign is that it's a public school preschool. At this point, if you're sending your child to preschool at all in a public school environment, then that is an unjustifiable decision at this point, I would say. You just cannot send.

Now, you know how I feel about public school in general. I don't think we should be sending our kids in public school at all. But at least if it's an older kid, a kid in high school or something, you know, there's a possibility that they're going to have enough moral and intellectual formation at that point where they can withstand the indoctrination that's being foist upon them. Also, there's at least the possibility, although I know that teenagers are notoriously not very forthcoming with information

about themselves and their experiences. Even so, there's the possibility. that you could sit down and talk to your teenager and say what happened at school today. You can have a conversation. You can hear about these things. But you're sending your three-year-old in. You're not going to hear about any of this. You can't talk to them. They're not going to tell you about any of this stuff. They might mention it. They might mention something in passing that raises your antenna. But for the most part, you're probably not going to hear about it. And also, they are totally susceptible. They are 100% susceptible to whatever their preschool teacher tells them.

So when this weirdo, this degenerate freak, sits down with your three-year-old and says, let's talk about our bodies. Whatever comes out of her mouth yet, your child is 100% susceptible to it. He has no defenses at all. You send your three-year-old into public school. This is an act of absolute complete trust in the system. You are trust. You are trust. You are trusting that nobody will take advantage of your child's innocence and vulnerability to turn them into something that you don't even recognize. You're trusting that. And what I'm saying is you cannot trust the system. You can't trust the system at all. You certainly can't trust it entirely and absolutely, which is what you do when you drop your three-year-old off in the building,

you say, hey, okay, I'll be back in a few hours. Just don't do it. It's not worth it. It's not worth it. Now we're to check in with a new sponsor we're very excited about, Superbeats. You know, it's hard to get all the nutrients that you need to get every single day, especially if you're busy. I mean, you might eat plenty of food. We all probably eat too much food, but are you getting the actual nutrients that you need from that food? A lot of us aren't. And that's why you need Superbeats. Superbeats, Heart Chews combines non-GMO beets with a special ingredient, grape seed extract that is unique to Superbeats, heart chews. Grape seed extract has been the focus of scientific research for years due to its high concentration of antioxidants, which supports

cardiovascular health and overall wellness. I don't really know what an antioxidant is, to be honest, but from all the hype, I understand that it's pretty important to have. The grape seed extract used in Superbeats heart chews has been clinically shown to be two times as effective at supporting normal blood pressure as a healthy lifestyle alone. And just two delicious chews a day gives the blood pressure support you need and the energy that you want and need as well. So do what I did and support your heart health. with delicious superbeats heart shoes. Get your superbeat heart shoes today at superbeats.com slash walsh.

And then you buy two bags. They'll throw in the third for free. So you want to take advantage of that. That's superbeats.com slash walsh. All right, let's move now to reading the comments. This is from John Smith says, I think the hardest time Matt has is thinking about something that he says is when he has to come up with a different pronunciation

for every individual every time he mentions them. Well, Jan Smith, I really don't know what you're even. talking about. Reese Richardson says, I'm getting married on Saturday. I'm aiming for five. Five wives are children. I hope you mean children. And five is a great number. Violin girl says, you don't seem to have a problem with killing animals. So why would you judge people who choose abortion? Well, Violin Girl, it's because people are different from animals. So it's for the same reason. Let me try to explain it this way. have you ever in your life been driving down the road and seen a roadkill on the side of the road?

Have you ever had that experience? I bet you have. You've seen a dead deer or a raccoon or a skunk or something. And how do you react to that when you see that dead animal on the side of the road? You probably don't think anything at all. You just keep driving. Maybe at most you think, oh, that's sad, poor deer. And then you go about your day. if you were driving along and you saw a dead person on the side of the road, you would have a very different reaction, right? I mean, aside from the fact that you would call the police, hopefully, but that would be a deeply traumatic experience for you. And it would hit you on a much deeper level.

That's something you would remember for the rest of your life. Can you remember specific incidents of roadkill that you saw? In fact, we refer to animals as roadkill. If you saw a dead person on the side of the road, Would you call a dead person roadkill? There's some roadkill and just keep driving? No. You would be traumatized by that.

You'd be very deeply shaken by it. You'd remember it for the rest of your life the time you saw a dead person on the side of the road. So why is that? You come up with an answer to that question and you'll have my answer on this. I think the answer is that in most cases, you value human life more than you value animal life. It's just that you make an exception for unborn human life. And what I'm saying is that there's no reason to make that exception. Because unborn human life is still human life.

And if you have judged that human life is more valuable than animal life, which you have and I know you have, then you should make the same judgment for unborn human life. That's my problem. Jared says, you're right, Matt, a nation's happiness, success, and pride are totally correlated to the amount of children they have. like Niger, which is at seven kids per woman. They've had lots of national successes since their independence in 1958. They've had five military coups, and it's yearly, and it's a yearly is dead last or close to it in the human development index.

Totally great logic. Also check out the next highest countries in birth rates, all of the uber patriotic, high-achieving countries like Angola, Mali, Chad, Uganda, and South Sudan. Yes, Jared, very clever. I mean, you can indeed provide many examples of third world countries and failed states where people have lots of kids and yet remain third world countries and failed states. Nothing I said yesterday contradicts that. What I would like to know, though, is if you can provide an example of a country that experienced a precipitous decline in the birth rates and then went on to flourish like never before.

That was my question. where has a drop in fertility led to led to national success and prosperity? Can you come up with an example of that? And I think you probably can. Because generally when a civilization gives up on the future, and when you've dropped below replacement level, when your fertility rate has dropped below replacement level, that means that collectively you've given up on the future.

And when that happens, that's not a, sign of a healthy civilization. That's not a sign of a civilization with a future, because it's given up on the future. OJ says, Matt, an iPhone and a puppy is not nearly as expensive as a family. Children cost hundreds of thousands to raise. Responsible people understand that they can't afford it. Who are these people that can't afford having a kid? Who are they? Who are the people who can't afford kids. Because, you know, I know families with single-income families where the mother stays home, six, seven, eight kids or more, and they're not making more than 80 or 90,000 a year at most for all those kids. I know plenty of families like that. I know families that make a lot

less than that and have more kids than I do, sometimes significantly more. So what is this stuff about I can't afford a kid? What do you mean exactly? You know, I see people all the time who live in nice, you know, apartments, and they've got all the latest consumer electronics. They've, they're living very comfortably. And they say they can't afford having a kid. Meanwhile, people who have less money than them have kids and also manage to live. live comfortably. How does that work? Because like I said yesterday, it's about priorities. Okay, children, and it's also about just things like proper budgeting, children don't come with a price tag. The idea, and I hear this a lot, that, well, the average child costs,

whatever number they give you now, it's like $300,000, cost $300,000 to get a child from, you know, age zero up to 18. That's absurd. That would mean that, you know, a middle class family with four or five kids would spend like over a million dollars raising those kids. meanwhile they might not even earn a million dollars in that time what we're being told is that to have a large family by by your estimation to have a large family and by large i mean like four kids or more you would have to be a millionaire to afford it and yet i'm willing to guess right now that not only is it not true that all families of that all large families are millionaires

i would guess that almost every large family is not a millionaire family No, generally, when you look at the higher income brackets, they have fewer kids. So there seems to be a disconnect here. You're assuming it's just not possible, you can't afford, kids are, kids are prohibitively expensive, and yet you look throughout the world and billions of people manage to do it. And they're not all living in poverty. Many of them manage to do it and live very comfortable. Because it's about proper budgeting.

It's about having a priority straight. And, yeah, I mean, you may have to make some sacrifices. rather than having seven TVs in the house, maybe you have to make do with three. Rather than getting the latest iPhone as soon as it comes out, maybe you only, maybe you have to wait, like maybe every third iPhone,

you get the upgrade, something like that. Maybe instead of going overseas on a vacation, you've got to settle with the continental United States. I mean, these are the kind of sacrifices that families have to make. All right, Jordan says, marriage is a no for me, man. Western women are lost beyond hope.

And then another comment from Rina who says, would love to have lots of babies but just can't find a good man. Well, Rina, meet Jordan, meet Rina. I hear this all the time. Men complaining they can't find a good woman. Women complaining they can't find a good man. I understand that it probably is difficult, but they are out there.

And we just made a connection right here in the YouTube comment section on the Matt Walsh show. Love is in the air. You know, if you like to stay well-read and informed, then I think the DailyWire's Reader Pass is what you need. It's right up your alley. And the good thing is that it's only four bucks a month, okay? The Daily Wire Reader's Pass unlocks exclusive editorial content that unpacks trending political and cultural topics, penned by everyone from Candace Owens to Dan Crenshaw. Plus, you can catch our latest analysis pieces which go up every single day.

And we also have Reader's Pass collection, we organize everything. They've got current collections, include the Hunter Biden files and BLM, the organization behind a movement. You can get all of this again. I think the headline here is for just $4 a month. So go to dailywire.com right now. Sign up for that readers' past. And as you all well know, the Sweet Baby Gang is an exclusive club that only my listeners are a part of. If you're one of the gang, then I have excellent news.

And I say, only my listeners are a part of the Sweet Baby Gang. That's true. But not even all the listeners are part of the Sweet Baby Gang. Okay, it is a more exclusive club than that. And here's the excellent news. We are in need of a Sweet Baby Gang anthem, and this is going to be something that it encapsulates everything that Sweet Baby Gang represents

and stands for, whatever that happens to be. And so we are, what I've been saying is we're looking for, the Sweet Baby Gang is looking for its own Francis Scott Key. We're looking for someone who can make our anthem that we will stand for, hand on heart. There's going to be no kneeling for this anthem at all. And that's why the DailyWire is right now opening up submissions. Submissions have been open up.

All you have to do is go to dailywire.com slash SBG. What you want to do is record your video, record the song, put it on YouTube, and then submit the link to dailywire.com slash SBG. Submissions end on August 25th. You've got a few days left to do that. And then we're going to judge all of these songs in sort of American Idol style and decide who has the ultimate sweet baby gang anthem. So again, that's dailywire.com slash SBG.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. There's a made-for-TV movie from my childhood called Not Quite Human. And as I recall, it was about a creepy middle-aged man who builds a robot that looks like a boy and then adopts him as a son. And the robot is mostly lifelike, but his true Android nature sometimes comes through in the way that he speaks and the way that he moves. It was a great film, a real classic of the genre. And by genre, I mean 80s made-for-TV movies about robots. This had to be in like the top 10 of that category. Anyway, you may be wondering why I'm telling you about this, and I'm sort of wondering about that myself.

I think the main reason is that I can never figure out who Mark Zuckerberg reminds me of exactly until I remembered not quite human. He is like a form of AI, an android that almost passes for a real boy, a robotic Pinocchio, you might say. And I wouldn't normally make fun of him for this. After all, you know, he can't help it if he was assembled in a laboratory in some mad scientist's basement somewhere. But the problem is that Zuckerberg wants to turn all of us into robots just like him. and he so far had enormous success in that regard, and it's only going to get worse from here. So Facebook, along with the other tech giants,

plans to move away from traditional social media and into the world of virtual reality. Zuckerberg is now building what he describes as a metaverse, a word he takes directly from a dystopian sci-fi book, which is a little too on the nose for my taste. An article in the conversation has this. It says, Mark Zuckerberg wants to reinvent Facebook. He's been telling analysts and journalists

that he wants the company to lead the way to a completely different internet. He said, quote, in the coming years, I expect people will transition from seeing us primarily as a social media company to seeing us as a metaverse company. In many ways, the metaverse is the ultimate expression of social technology. The term metaverse is used to describe the vision whereby the internet will evolve into a virtual world. It foresees the internet as a 3D virtual living space where individuals dip in and out, interacting with one another in real time.

Many in Silicon Valley still view the metaverse as the future. For example, Google is heavily. invested in augmented reality, which is where you use technology to look at the real world, but with digital 3D objects layered on top, and rumors swirl that Apple is building products like glasses for experiencing virtual spaces. But Facebook appears the most committed to all through this new vision in his quest to turn Facebook into a metaverse company. Zuckerberg is seeking to build a system where people move between virtual reality, augmented reality, and even 2D devices, using realistic avatars of themselves where appropriate. Here they will work, socialize,

share things and have other experiences. Now, one need not strain too much to imagine what those other experiences might be. I'll say only that porn sites are also working on building their own virtual reality universes. So maybe you connect the dots there. But as the article suggests, Zuckerberg is ahead of the game and has already come up with his first metaverse application. In an effort to, as he says, help us to be a part of and inside of the internet, he's come up with something called Horizon Workrooms,

which is a virtual reality office space where you can have meetings with your coworkers inside the Metaverse. So think of it like Zoom, except a thousand times worse. Here is Zuckerberg on CBS this morning, giving a demonstration of the Metaverse.

Workrooms is used on Facebook's Oculus Quest 2 virtual reality headsets. Once inside, you can customize your own avatar. Mark, I'm in. All right, welcome. Oh my God, you've got freckles on your nose. I have freckles in real life, too, so I'm trying to do the best of my avatar. Wow.

Do you like my glasses? I like it in here. Your avatar looks great. This is my first virtual reality interview. How about you? It's mine, too. All right. Virtual reality interview, too.

You know, we're very optimistic that in five years from now, people are going to be able to live where they want and work from wherever they want. They want. but are going to be able to feel present as if they're together when they're doing that. Do you have a favorite feature to use in here? Yeah. Something that you think is very cool. Yeah, I mean, there are a couple of things that I really like.

I mean, one is that you can just dynamically change the layout of the room. So, you know, I mean, here, you know, I can, we're in a room layout that's designed for conversation. I can switch us really quickly. So now we're in a presentation setting. Yes. So that's pretty neat. And mics in the middle, yeah. And then, you know, check this out.

I can basically go and go stand at the whiteboard. Oh, wow. It's like brainstorming, just like in a normal meeting that you would have been in. Well, that is truly horrifying. Many problems spring immediately to mind. First of all, what if Jeffrey Tubin shows up to your Metaverse meeting? I mean, he's bad enough on Zoom. Now imagine being trapped in virtual reality with him.

Also, who in God's name wants to be more fully immersed in a work meeting? Who's ever been sitting on a Zoom call and said to themselves, man, this is great, but I just wish I could be literally trapped inside this call right now in the computer with all these people. The whole advantage of Zoom is that you don't have to pay attention or actually be physically near anyone. Now that's being taken away. And Zuckerberg says that it's great because now you can attend meetings from anywhere on Earth. Hooray! That's wonderful.

So even if you're on vacation in Fiji, your boss back in New Jersey can still call you into the conference room for a meeting. That's supposed to be a good thing. You know, one of the problems with Zoom and social media and the internet generally is it won't allow us to get the hell away from each other and that makes this problem, this makes that problem, I think, a lot worse. Not to mention, what if your boss calls you in to fire you? Can you imagine getting fired by your employer's cartoon avatar? Talk about insult injury. And speaking of the cartoon avatar, why exactly would you want to make it look exactly like yourself, right down to the facial blemishes. If there's any advantage to this kind of thing, wouldn't it be that you can build a better

version of yourself, more interesting version of the world as well? This is one of the many downsides of living in a country run by these tech nerds. I mean, they're all genius, IQ, billionaires, but they have very little imagination. So Zuckerberg can create a virtual reality world, but he makes it look like a conference room on the ninth story of an office building in Cincinnati. If we're going to do this meta-universe thing, why wouldn't you have your meeting on like a moon of Jupiter or inside a volcano or in the jungle during the Jurassic period? You could do all of that. You might as well make it interesting if we're going to do this. But going back to what I just said before, I said that one of the problems

with the internet is that it won't allow us to get the hell away from each other. And that's true. It becomes weirdly claustrophobic and exhausting because we're all in constant contact with each other all the time with no space to breathe. Even the simple act of carrying a phone around all the time is oppressive, constantly at the beck and call of anyone who happens to have our phone number, when I was a child, and you kids out there, you're going to find this hard to believe, but when I was a child, if you wanted to talk to somebody on the phone or contact them at all and they weren't physically at their house, then you simply wouldn't be able to contact them. You would have to call and leave a message and wait for them to respond, and it might take a few days. People would walk

around in the world every day with nothing in their pocket but a wallet. It may be keys. You were forced to, if you can believe it, you were forced to actually acknowledge and interact with your immediate environment and the people within it. And if two people were out there in the world somewhere, far away from you having a conversation, there would be no way for you to intrude into it. You couldn't call. You couldn't send a text. They're over there living their lives and you were here and all you could do was be here in this place that you are with no way to escape it except to, you know, to physically travel to another place. And sometimes, and this I know you won't believe, but sometimes you would do this thing called nothing. And what I mean is maybe you were sitting in a waiting room getting your oil changed or at the dentist.

And there were no good magazines or, you know, nothing that you were interested in on TV. and maybe nobody was around you who you felt like talking to. So you would just sit there and think. Can you imagine that? You just like sit. Have you ever done this? I know it's like people of a certain age have probably never done this in their lives. But you just sit in the chair.

That's all you do. You just sit there. And you would think about things. And thinking, you know, this is, if I have to explain what thinking is, thinking is this thing that people used to do before Google started doing it for them. So all this to say. The internet makes it so that we can't escape other people except for those people who we are actually physically present with.

It keeps us connected to strangers and social media mob and coworkers and other assorted malcontents. But it becomes this complete inversion of priorities because the thing that grabs our attention is the thing which we are farthest away from. We become immersed in the universe but not the room we're sitting in. Now with virtual reality and augmented reality, this will only get worse. Think about augmented reality.

Now they want to augment even that room that you're sitting in, which you were already mostly ignoring. They want to facilitate all of our human interactions, including the in-person face-to-face interactions, what few of them we have anymore. We'll reach a point where I'm sure, you know, people are going to be sitting in a physical conference room with, each other altogether and all wearing those dumb-looking headsets so that they can interact with the cartoon versions of each other. We are slowly giving up on flesh and blood human existence, melting into the internet, becoming a part of it, as Zuckerberg says, says he wants us to be a part of the internet, a hellish, dystopian vision that he openly says, that's his plan. Soon we'll all be soulless machines like himself, not quite human.

like the 80s TV movies tried to warn us. But we didn't listen because we never do. And so it's probably futile now to say this, but I will anyway. While I still can, Mark Zuckerberg, you are, of course, canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend, everybody. 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 Podcasts. Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire Podcasts, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Null's show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall's show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. Our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager, Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production coordinator

is McKenna Waters. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 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 Clavin show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Clavin Show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Clavin.