The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 805 - The power of victimhood

Episode Date: September 27, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, cancel culture claims another victim. This time, a random woman at a dog park has her whole life destroyed after an out of context video goes viral. Also, Liz Cheney comes out for trans rights. Biden tells blatant lies about border patrol. The media wonders why so many people with COVID symptoms are testing negative for the virus. I have a theory. Plus, the Loudoun County school board tried to stop me from speaking at their next meeting by changing the rules. But I may have found a workaround. And in our Daily Cancellation, we will cancel the female James Bond before she even exists.  You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 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, cancel culture claims another victim, this time a random woman at a dog park, has her whole life destroyed after an out-of-context video goes viral. Also, Liz Cheney comes out for trans rights. Biden tells blatant lies about Border Patrol, and the media wonders why so many people with COVID symptoms are testing negative for the virus. I have a theory about that. Plus, the Loudoun County School Board tried to stop me from speaking at their next meeting by changing the rules, but I may have found a workaround. And in our daily cancellation, we will cancel the female James Bond. before she even exists. All of that and more today on the Matt Walls show. Before we get started today, just a reminder that if you are watching this on YouTube, the best thing that you can do for me personally and in some ways for yourself and your own life is to hit like and also subscribe and the more that you like and the more that you comment, the more that it will fool the algorithm into thinking that I'm more popular than I really am and that really is the goal here. So make sure to hit like, do it right now. Do it now! And also, If you're on YouTube while you're there, you might as well go check out the other content that we have on the channel.

We put up content every single day. And this Saturday, we put up the first and what will probably be, unfortunately, a series, what we're calling the adventure series, where I go places against my will. I'm sent to places, and I have to try to have a good time. This time, me and Knowles were sent to an escape room. And I didn't know that's where they were sent. They put us in a car, and there was cameras rigged, and they said, just go to this address and we got there. And our worst nightmares were realized and it was an escape room. And we did a horrible job of escaping. I put all the blame on Michael Nulls because

as I share in that video, I did do an escape room with Ben Shapiro years ago. And we got out, we escaped quickly, mainly because it was all Ben doing all the work. So I have to rely on other people to do the work, just like back in high school. In a group assignment, I was always the guy sitting there while everyone else does everything. So anyway, go check out that video and all the other content that we have. Okay. You know, I can remember, speaking of being in high school, the bullies that I went to school with, you know, the real-life schooly bully was never quite as one-dimensional and cartoonishly

villainous as he was portrayed in shows and movies that we watched back then, but he was still a jerk, right? And as I recall, bullies were pretty straightforward. They would impose themselves on those who are weaker and taunt and belittle them because it gave them the bully's personal satisfaction and probably because they were trying to assuage their own damaged egos and enhance their own sense of self-worth and so on. But the message from the bully was, I'm strong, you're weak, and that makes me better than you. The bully would try to hurt his victim's feelings or hurt him physically, and if he succeeded, then he won, at least in his mind.

That's why the best response to a bully back then was to try to beat him at his own game, to cause him the exact sort of hurt that he wanted to cause you. If you succeeded, then the bully was vanquished, at least for a time. If you punched the bully in the nose and made him run off crying, then you won because you had asserted your dominance over him. He had made a fool of himself and cried in front of everybody, and this was a source of shame. That's the way that it used to work. It wasn't great. It wasn't a great position to be in. Bullying is never a good thing. It was a little bit messy at times. But I have to say lately, I've been pining. for the simplicity and the coherence of those days, how bullying used to work.

Because now things are flipped on their head. The bullies are all sort of modeling themselves after that scene in Fight Club, where Edward Norton gets revenge on his boss by beating the hell out of himself in the boss's office. So the bully now asserts his dominance, assuages his ego, enhances his own self-worth by manufacturing ways in which he has been hurt by his victim. Bullying today is far more passive aggressive, manipulative, and psychologically twisted than the simple days of calling somebody a name, shoving them into a locker to let them know that you're more powerful than them. Now the bullies assert their power by pretending that their victim is asserting power over them. They gain power by affecting powerlessness. When I was younger, it would have been embarrassing for anyone, especially a guy, to admit that he had his own.

feelings hurt. Now there's a contest over who had their feelings hurt the most. You know, it used to be, if you said, I got my feelings hurt, everybody would point and laugh at you. You got your feelings hurt, you loser. Now instead of responding that way, everybody says, no, no, no, I have my feelings hurt even more than you. Neither response is great, but what we're doing now is worse. This is how modern cancer culture works, of course. We saw a perfect example of this over the weekend when a guy by the name of Frederick Joseph, who's a black man, and also an author, and I'll tell you more about his book in a moment, because it is relevant here. He sent out a string of tweets claiming that he had been accosted by a white woman in a dog park in Brooklyn. He tweeted,

quote, at the dog park in Brooklyn with my fiance, and this white woman was threatening to call police and told us to stay in our hood because she had our dog confused with another dog who had been barking loudly. So I started recording, and she tried to slap the phone out of my hand. He then posted the video, of course, but naturally the video cuts on right after all of this allegedly happened. Let's watch it here. Check it out. Stay in our hood? No,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry, everyone. Stay in our hood. Stay in our hood. I'm sorry, what? Stay in our hood. Stay in our hood. You just hold us. Stay in our hood. You just hold us to leave the dog park and stay in our hood. Oh my God, did you just say, that's me?

That's funny. Wow, wow. Wow, but Karen is in the white. I'm sorry, you were right here, watch this entire thing. Did she just not stand here and tell us to stay in our hood? She did. You just told us this. So what do we know from that video?

Well, nothing at all. We don't know the context. We don't know what was said before the video cuts on. We don't know what precipitated the interaction or even what the interaction was. We don't know if she said what he claimed she said or why she said it if she did, if she did in fact say anything. We don't know anything. we have only this out-of-context video featuring a group of people that none of us have ever heard of, and we have the word of Mr. Frederick Joseph.

A word which must be taken with a rather large portion of salt given that Frederick Joseph is the author of a book called The Black Friend on Being a Better White Person. On Being a Better White Person. Now, I don't need to read the book to know that it's a racist screed for the same reason that Frederick Joseph wouldn't have to read a book by me about being a better black person to declare that it's racist. So this guy's a professional race baiter who's in the business of telling white people how to be better. And he just so happens to find himself in this situation with an allegedly racist white woman. You might almost think that this anti-white race baiting bigot may have engineered this

situation to play out exactly as it did. Who knows? But Joseph wasn't satisfied to simply put the video up and leave it at that, of course. He then proceeds to dig up this woman's name and other pictures of her and posts them online also. He even posts the name of her dog for some reason. He posts the town where she lives. And then he finds out where she works, or worked, I should say. And he posts that information. And then he personally contacts her boss by the name of Derek Anderson at a company called Bevy to try and get her fired. And obviously, he succeeds. So within hours of the original out-of-context 15-second video being posted, the woman has lost her job, lost her reputation, her privacy, probably most of her friends,

given where she lives. Derek Anderson, her former boss, tweeted this, Bevy has zero tolerance for discriminatory behavior of any kind. Yesterday, an employee engaged in behavior contrary to our values and has been terminated. We apologize deeply to all involved. Now, how does he know what sort of behavior she engaged in? There couldn't have been enough time to actually investigate the situation thoroughly. We don't know. But that doesn't matter. All he knows is that Frederick Joseph says that his feelings were hurt, and that's all the

information he needs. Now, for his part, for his part, after randomly ruining this stranger's life for no reason, Frederick Joseph posted a follow-up video, encouraging everybody, white people, namely, to learn the right lessons from this. since then. Watch this. So I was just told that Bevy has terminated Emma Sarlie after her racist

attack against my fiance and I in the dog park. And while it's unfortunate that she had to lose her job, I do think that this brings up an important conversation about accountability, especially in a country where black and brown people,

marginalized people as a whole, have seen so little of it oftentimes. times, right? You know, having to bear the burden of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., I think that it's important that people know that there are consequences for their actions, right? And I don't think that it's up to victims to have to coddle, you know, people who are engaging in abuse. You know, when I woke up yesterday morning, I didn't expect to have to be a part of this conversation. I didn't expect to go to the dog park as a black person and have to receive, you know, racism. You know, so while, again, it is unfortunate what happened, I hope that, you know,

Emma learns from this. I hope that other people learn from this who engage in abusive, racist, and destructive behavior because ultimately, whether Emma lost her job or not, doesn't take away the trauma that my fiance and I have. It doesn't take away the feeling of feeling like, anything racist can happen anywhere. So I don't think that people should be coddled. And I do think that consequences are important. So hopefully this is a learning lesson for everybody. A learning lesson. So the rule maintains here, the rule I've told you about, anytime someone

says they've done or said something in order to start a conversation, they're always full of it 100% of the time. And here yet again, well, it brings up an important conversation. It's unfortunate that she had to lose her job, she had to lose her job. It's unfortunate after I have deliberately made sure that she loses her job. After I spent my weekend trying to make sure that this woman lost her job, it's unfortunate that it happened. It had to happen. It's just how the stars aligned. You know, it's fate. What could I do about it? Well, it turns out I could do a lot to make sure she loses her job because that's what I spent my weekend doing. He says he was traumatized. he's traumatized by this little white woman at a dog park when when i was a kid you know if a guy

had claimed to have been traumatized by by words that someone else had said much less words that a girl has said to you you'd be mocked ruthlessly then you're going to suffer real trauma that's that's the kind of social sin in going around saying i was traumatized by those words you said to me that would stay with you forever you know if you said that in third grade 10 years later people would still be talking about it and making fun of you for it but this is how bullying works now this is the this is the power of victimhood the bully asserts his power by affecting powerlessness by claiming that he is the one who is traumatized, while he at least tries to cause trauma to other people.

I would say that's real trauma when you have the internet lynch mob coming after you. You lose your job and everything else. And I say all this knowing, by the way, that this woman, I'm going to assume a pretty good chance that she is a leftist herself, based on where she lives alone. And so you might say this is another example of the left eating its own. Perhaps so. But it's still a problem because it's yet again the bully asserting the power of victimhood.

It's just not possible to have a functioning society this way. It was one thing when the strong used to subjugate the weak by imposing their strength. Now they subjugate the weak by pretending to be weaker, which in the end we find out, is a much worse situation. Now let's get to our five headlines. Now, a quick word from ZipRecruiter. You know, there are some things in life that I like to pick for myself.

So I know I've got the one that's best for me, like cuts of steak, mattresses, bottles of wine. I read bottles of wine on here, but honestly, actually, that's one. I don't know anything about wine. I just choose the second cheapest one. I figure it's best than, it's a little better than the worst type of wine.

But other things, you know, you want to pick it for yourself. and what if you could do the same for hiring? Choose your ideal candidate before they even apply. That's where ZipRecruiter's Invite to Apply comes in. It gives you as the hiring manager the power to pick your favorites from top candidates. And right now, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. How does invite to apply work?

Well, when you post a job on ZipRecruiter, they send you the most qualified people for the job. Then you can easily review the candidates and invite your top choices to apply for your job. And it's as simple as that. And what that means is that you have more say in the job. this process of hiring people for your position, which you should, because this is your company, and ZipRecruiter just makes that so much easier. You can see for yourself, just go to this exclusive web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh Walsh Walsh, to try ZipRecruiter for free. That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.

So I shared with you on Friday this Loudoun County rally we've got coming up on September 28th. That's tomorrow. We're going to be in Loudoun County. at 4 p.m. in Ashburn, Virginia, right outside of the school board building. And, you know, I share with you how they changed the rules at the last minute. I'm sure it was entirely coincidental. I had announced my plans to come speak at the, well, I'm going to speak at the rally. They can't stop that from happening. That's all, that was always going to happen. But also, I was going to go in and speak to, and deliver some thoughts to the actual school board. And they started changing, they started changing things.

They shortened the speaking time to a minute, so they did that. They also moved up the speaking time, so that it would, so that it would overlap with the rallies. So we had to push the rally back to 4 o'clock, said doing 5 o'clock. So they did all that. That was expected. And then at the very last minute, they say, oh, you know what, we've just decided a new rule here where you have to be a resident of Loudoun County in order to speak at the Loudoun County School Board meeting. and you have to prove your residence with an ID or a lease agreement or, you know, mortgage statement or utility bill or something.

Now, we know why they made this change, but you have to think about, they're trying to exclude me. Okay, that's pretty clear. Unless this is one big coincidence. But you think about who else they've excluded, by the way. With a rule like this, this means that if you're a grandparent, uncle, aunt, relative of a child in the school district and you want to speak on their behalf

because as a family member you're concerned about what's happening, you can't speak. You're excluded. Not to mention, as we reviewed last week, all of these schools get federal funding. Which means that all of us in the country are funding, are personally funding every single school.

We all have a stake in it. All of our money is attending all of these schools. which means that we should have a say. So anyway, as they made this coincidental change to require for this meeting people to be residents, I also, and this is really incidental and it just, it really is a coincidence. And I'd actually been thinking about this for a while that I would love to have a place in Loudoun County. I've been thinking about this and I finally decided to pull the trigger last week, you know, right after Loudoun County made their announcement.

And so now I'm going to be leasing a home in Loudoun County. I did find a homeowner there, property owner, who was willing to give me a very competitive rate. And so I'm very excited that now I, and I'll have the lease agreement, which I will present while I'm walking into the school board meeting tomorrow. So I'm very excited by that. I am a Virginia resident. I'm really excited.

I'm a proud Virginian. And I couldn't be happier about that. So I'll see you at the school board meeting tomorrow. All right, let's start with this. Liz Cheney was, she of course is the Democrats and the media's favorite Republican, and we'll see why here she was being interviewed on 60 minutes. And they got into the issue, you know, into social issues, cultural issues. And here's what Liz Cheney had to say.

Your sister's gay. She's married. She has children. And in 2013, you came out against same sex. marriage while your father went the other way. And it was looked upon as courageous when he did that. How do you defend what you did? I was wrong. I was wrong. I love my sister very much. I love her family very much. And I was wrong. It's a very personal issue and very personal for my family. I believe that my dad was right. And my sister and I have had that conversation.

Wow. I was not expecting that. This is an issue that we have to recognize, you know, as human beings, that we need to work against discrimination of all kinds in our country, in our state. We were at an event a few nights ago, And there was a young woman who said she doesn't feel safe sometimes because she's transgender. And nobody should feel unsafe. Freedom means freedom for everybody. Okay, none of that meant anything at all. It did sound like she said human beings, like a green bean. That's beside the point.

None of that. That's just far left clap trap is all that is. I just don't believe, starting with the issue of same-sex marriage. You'll notice she says, oh, I was wrong about that. I've changed my mind. There's this follow-up question that amazingly, you never hear in the media, but you think it'd be any normal person's follow-up, which is, oh, why? Why did you change your mind about this?

Why did you initially believe that marriage is between a man or woman? and what made you change your mind and what do you think marriage is now? So you believed marriage is an institution which by definition, because that was always the argument for the advocates of quote unquote traditional marriage. The argument was never

that it should be illegal for gay men to get married or for lesbians to get married. That was never the argument. the argument is that marriage is a particular thing. It has a definition. It serves a certain function in society, and that is the function that the function is supposed to be to serve as the basis for the family. And the family itself is the cornerstone of society, of human civilization, of the civilization of all human beings. That was the argument. You know, it's not that gay people should be prevented from getting

married is that they can't because marriage isn't that. That's not what marriage is. Marriage is, it has a few defining features. One of them is that it is a fundamentally in principle pro-creative union. There are couples who can't conceive because of illness or birth defect or whatever, but that does not change what marriage is in principle. And it is, it is. It is a doesn't change the fact that the heterosexual union is in principle, a procreative union. So that was the argument. And, you know, I think it was a pretty good argument. I still stand by that argument personally. And, you know, unlike people like Luce Cheney and so many other alleged conservatives and Republicans, I feel better. I feel even more sure of the arguments I

made defending quote unquote traditional marriage years ago today than I did even then. What we've seen happen in the intervening years has only reinforced my belief in what marriage actually is. And part of that is because we've seen exactly the slippery slope that we predicted has played out by what would happen in society, especially with the institution of marriage when you get rid of this definition. So that is reinforced. my views, but also because here we are years later when the pro-gay marriage side has won the argument. I mean, they've certainly won the argument in society anyway. There's no doubt about that. They've won it culturally. But years later, they still haven't told us what marriage is now.

All they said was, oh, no, it's not a procreative union between man and woman. And so we've been waiting around to find out, okay, then what is it now? What is it exactly? What is marriage? Why do we have it? Why do we need it? And so who should be included in it? We know you think gay couples, anybody else? And if we are now limiting this to, you know, heterosexual adult single couples, you know, two people, and now, and we've expanded it also to be gay couples, can we expand it beyond that? If not, why not? what is it they've never come up with an answer because there isn't one if marriage is not the foundation for the family if it's not a procreative union between between man and woman then it's

then it's not anything then there's no reason to redefine it's just nothing then it's just people that have decided that they want to live with each other okay there's no reason to call that anything special there's no reason to treat it specially there's no reason to put any limit limitations on it whatsoever. You know, that's, that's what we had been saying back before gay marriage became the law of the land. And that argument has been proven correct. So that's what I would say about. I would love to hear from Liz Cheney or any of these other Republicans that have had a change of heart, why they had the change of heart.

They thought marriage was a particular thing 10 years ago. They don't think it's that thing anymore. Why? And what would they say it is now? We don't get that answer. And then she also throws in the transgender bit as well. And why is this really happening? What's the real answer? If you were to get her real answer, if you were to ask and get the real answer, the real answer is that she never had any opinion about marriage. She doesn't care about that. She doesn't care about any of these issues.

She's a politician saying what she thinks she needs to say. That, of course, is the real and sort of boring answer, but that's the fact. And so she'll adopt the most far left positions that she needs to, she's also doing it with transgenderism as well. Wasn't even asked about that, throws that in also. And if you want to understand how deep the rot goes in the Republican Party, so that's Liz Cheney for you, who is a leftist, and that's my issue with her. A lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives don't like her because she doesn't like Trump. I don't really care about that. I don't think people are defined based on their opinion of a guy. I don't care who the guy is. and that includes Donald Trump. I'm not defining anyone or making any sweeping judgments about them based on their opinion of a guy, especially a politician. I mean, I'm sympathetic to anyone who hates a politician. I don't care who the politician is. There are good reasons to hate every single one of them. So that's not my problem. My problem is that she's a leftist. My problem is what you just heard in that one minute clip there. So she's a persona non grata in the Republican Party.

she gets kicked out of her position of leadership. And in her place goes Elise Stephanick, who has the endorsement of Donald Trump. And is Elise Steffinick any better? No, Stephanick voted for the Equality Act two years ago. The Equality Act, which would impose, among other things, the trans agenda on a federal level across the entire country. I mean, open up every single bathroom, sports team, locker room, all of it.

across the country, federally. It would erase religious liberty. It would be the final erasure of, that's out the window. Not to mention basic truth, biology, common sense, all of that's out the window from the Equality Act. I mean, this is, I think it would be an exaggeration to say the most radically far left piece of legislation ever written is the Equality Act, and Elise Steffinick voted for it. And she has the endorsement of Donald Trump, and she's the one who replaces Liz Cheney.

conservatives are sat there plenty of conservatives so good good we got stephanic in there instead of that dastardly loose cheney she's worse the only difference is that she pretends to like trump that another reason why we can't let you know when we're deciding who the leaders of the conservative movement are going to be who the leaders of the republican party are going to be we can't let donald trump be the centerpiece of that it can't be that we're deciding it based on what what the what the these people say about this guy, Donald Trump? Because if you decide it based on that, you end up with a person in leadership who voted for the Equality Act, but just so happens to say nice things about Trump. It's a total disaster. I mean, the rot is, is, goes all the way to the core, goes down to the

roots of the Republican Party. I don't think there's any salvaging it probably. All right, um, let's move on some clips over on CNN that we got to play. Uh, I'm, look, I'm no economics expert, you know that. So maybe I'm the one who's clueless here. It's possible. But I want you to listen to this Washington Post reporter on CNN with Brian Stelter. And you tell me if this makes any sense at all. But in fact, the bill itself will not cost $3.5 trillion in the sense that it will be entirely or at least partly paid for. So the actual cost in terms of deficits will be smaller than that, perhaps even zero, although I think that's unlikely. And it's not even, you know, fully spending. It's not really right to call it a $3.5 trillion

spending bill because there's probably about a trillion of tax cuts in it too. Uh, what? So she's talking about the $3.5 trillion spending bill, and she says that it's not really spending because it won't be paid with debt.

It's all going to be paid for. That's not actually true, but let's leave that totally to the side. Her argument is that if you buy something and pay for it up front, it's free. That's what she just said. This is a Washington Post reporter on CNN. Of course, there's no follow up on that. She wasn't challenged. Stelter didn't stop and say, well, wait a second,

what? So what she's saying is that if you go to Costco and you buy one of their TVs for a drastically reduced price, you know, and you pay with cash up or you pay with a debit card up front, then it's free. I bought this TV. on my debit card for $600, therefore the TV was free. What can you say about that? That's just not... I don't even have to be at an economics 101 level to know. This isn't economics at all. This is basic logic here. That's not how it works. If you paid for it, then you're paying for it.

If it's a $3.5 trillion spending bill, then that's how much money it costs. even if it doesn't add to the deficit at all, which of course it will. Let's pay a little bit more from Brian Stelter because why not. He also had Nicole Hannah Jones on and he asks her, you know, he's throwing some real hard balls at her, asking her some tough questions. Let's listen to that. But is this just the white lash in another form, Nicole? Just, you know, some white America is afraid to deal with the reality so they don't want

to hear it so they try to ban it and then someday their kids are going to laugh it off? I mean, I don't know. I think that this is a particularly dangerous moment because there's one thing to have right-wing media saying they don't like the 1619 project, they don't agree with the 1619 project, but it's quite something else to have politicians from state legislators down to school boards actually making prohibitions against teaching a work of American journalism or really any of these other texts. The fact that we are all talking about this. this fake controversy called critical race theory really speaks to how successful the public propaganda campaign has been. I don't think it's just about, you know, scared white parents. It's about a politician savvily stoking racial resentment in response, I think, to the global protest last year in order to divide Americans from each other. First of all, pet peeve here. I hated one with change. words like this in a in a totally unnecessary way so he says is this a white lash against the 1619

project what do you need why why do you have to put white in there do you think the real the original word is black lash white is not the opposite of its backlash and white is not the opposite of back why can't it just be a backlash from white people white lash so you've got white lash and black lash is what's going on, I guess. And then, and then, of course, everything she said about the 1619 project is nonsense. But this is a good example of what the left does. And it's very effective, where they take something that, at the very least, you'd think they'd have to admit it's controversial. They're trying to take CRT, critical race theory, these radical ideas of race about race.

idea you know they they say that these ideas oh they're only in the higher academic and this these are just theories that people are batting around in law school and all that kind of stuff um and that used to be the case these used to be ideas and theories that uh you had to go into university and find them and involve yourself in these subjects in order to encounter them that used to be true but it's not anymore because it's filtering on down into not just grade school but into every facet of society and this is a in intentional this is not organic this is an intentional thing that is happening it's being engineered there are people advocating for it saying let's take these ideas about race and let's inject them into every corner of society especially into grade

schools now at the very least you would think that the people who are advocating this would have to admit that this, look, this is a radical change we're doing. We know that this is a dramatic shift. We understand that it's controversial. But here's our argument for it. Here's why we want to do it. We know it might be a little bit startling, but here's why we want to do it. They're not doing that.

They make the radical shift. They impose it on us. They don't really give a choice. And then as soon as it's done, they act like you're the crazy one. You're the radical one for objecting. They're not going to admit that their radicalism is radicalism at all. It's always the people objecting who are the radicals. One of the clip to play, this is Joe Biden on Friday, keeping the whipgate going.

But he actually takes it one step further. We heard the lie about how Border Patrol agents were whipping people, whipping Haitian immigrants. That was a total lie. didn't happen, it never happened. He goes further than that, even. Let's listen to what he says. You said on the campaign trail that you were going to restore the moral standing of the U.S., that you were going to immediately end Trump's assault on the dignity of immigrant communities. Given what we saw at the border this week, have you failed in that promise? And this is happening

under rear watch. Do you take responsibility for the chaos that's unfolding? Of course, I take responsibility. I'm president, but it was horrible what to see, as you saw. To see people treat it like they did, horses, really running them over, people being strapped, it's outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay. They will be an investigation underway now, and there will be consequences. There will be consequences. It's an embarrassment, but it's beyond an embarrassment. It's dangerous. It's wrong. It sends the wrong message around the world. It sends the wrong message at home. It's simply not who we are. Yeah, you're right. That's not who we are, because that didn't happen. I don't know what being

strapped means, people being strapped? Is that an expression from his childhood in 1832? I don't know. But horses running people over? That wasn't even a part of the original talking point. He added that one in. So the Border Patrol

agents are down there running the Haitian immigrants over with their horses, galloping through, running them down, trampling them into the dust. That's what he's telling us now. He just added that in there. And once again, no follow-up from the media, nobody's saying, wait, they ran them over with horses, you say.

Where did that happen? That's an interesting detail. It doesn't matter. I think it's simply make things up. Makes no difference. The Border Patrol agents down there run them over with horses. There was one guy, he jumped off the horse. He picked up a Haitian immigrant.

Body slammed him. This is not who we are. No relation to the truth whatsoever. and no concern with the truth. Finally, here's a headline from the Daily Mail that I thought was interesting. It says, why are so many suffering dreadful COVID symptoms but still testing negative? Sarah Vine was convinced she had it, but countless tests said otherwise. And she's far from alone.

So what is going on? Now reading a little bit here, I don't know who Sarah Vine is, maybe we'll find out. A nasty dry cough, sniffles, and a thumping headache, burning muscle pain. And if you didn't feel miserable enough, everything you eat tastes like dust. It's a list of symptoms that the British public have become all too familiar with over the past 18 months. Classic COVID, or is it? A fortnight ago, mail on Sunday columnist Sarah Vine, this is what I love about British media, by the way. They use terms like Fortnite.

They just dropped that in there with no explanation. Of course, every American reader goes, what's a Fortnite again? How many nights ago is that? Four? I don't think so. A fortnight ago, Mail on Sunday columnist Sarah Vine wrote about how she had been battling exactly this combination of ailments. But multiple tests, both the gold standard PCR and rapid lateral flows, had come back negative. Speaking on our medical minefield podcast, the 54-year-old mother of two,

describe the phenomenon as spooky. She said, quote, it's so very weird. I don't really get ill. And when I do, it doesn't tend to stop me doing things. But this really stop me in my tracks. And it seems Sarah isn't alone. her original revelation triggered a deluge of letters from readers suffering in the same way and equally desperate for answers about their mystery illness.

Some, like 23-year-old Molly Whitaker, have been suffering like Sarah with lingering symptoms. It started with a continuous cough, loss of taste and smell, and a slight temperature. I've done multiple COVID tests, PCR, all negative. I'm now three weeks later on a course of antibiotics, but they're not helping. Another reader, Marie Morgan, wrote, I've never felt so ill in my life for three weeks. I experienced high temperatures, prolonged bouts of deep cold and shivering. But in night the sweats were so bad, I completely soaked two or three times.

And then on and on or not. Okay. All of these people, mostly women, complaining of these symptoms, and they're saying it's spooky. It's weird. They have these COVID symptoms, but the tests come back negative. What we're meant to take from this is that the COVID is far more widespread than we're even being told. And, you know, even if the tests come back negative, you probably still have it. I think that's the implication here.

At least that's what we're supposed to take away from. I have another theory, though. Let me see if I can clear this up. This spooky mystery. Here it is. That COVID symptoms are also the symptoms for the common cold and for the flu. And for literally dozens of other viruses. I mean, probably any virus you can name, actually, causes at least some of the COVID symptoms.

That's because COVID symptoms are extremely broad. Okay, so when you get a headache and you have a stuffy nose or you have a cough, those aren't COVID symptoms. Those are just illness symptoms, not, maybe I'm saying, maybe I'm sorry. simplify it and summarize it. I'll do it this way. Not everything is COVID. It may shock you to learn that. There are still lots of other illnesses out there, and it's not all COVID. We now live for a world where we're trying to get rid of binaries, at least in some areas, it's interesting that now we live in this binary where, you know, if you're, if you're

sick, you either have COVID or you have COVID-like symptoms. And those are the the only two options. It's kind of amazing. This is an entire article in a major publication talking about how people with the, how it's spooky that some women have a cold. Ooh, spooky. All right. Let's move on now to reading the comments. All right. This is from Ultra Galaxyify. On the subject of culture, I agree with Matt on everything, except for one thing. A culture can only be destroyed when the people are either killed off or completely forget it. The destroyed monuments and textbooks that tell us our history are certainly important in preserving our past, which is an important component of any culture, but it won't outright kill it. The only way to do that is to kill slash brainwash the people, which the far left is trying like hell to do, especially the the latter. Yeah, destroying the monuments doesn't, that's not what kills the culture. That in and of itself doesn't erase history. That is, speaking of symptoms, that's a symptom of the culture being destroyed and being replaced by not a new culture, but an anti-culture. That's also brings us

back to the issue of marriage. Give rid of the definition of marriage, but don't replace it with a new one. It's not like we have now a new idea about marriage. Instead, marriage is nothing. We don't have any ideas about it. Vanessa says the public school is becoming a brave new world education. Yeah, I think that's the right. More than a 1984 Orwellian thing, I think the public school and our culture in general more closely resembles a brave new world. I've always thought that Huxley got nailed it a little bit better than Orwell did. Mike says pretty sure I saw Matt screaming and running out of an auto parts store the other day. Couldn't catch him to get an autograph.

Sweet Daddy Walsh is fast. It's true. This happens to me all the time, which is why I always have my phone on me so I can go to rockado. com. Lone Star Carl says, I'd forgive Matt for leaving a shopping cart out, but I will burn my SBG shirt if I catch him jogging outside with a mask on. Well, you would never see that. But if you did, you have my permission to walk up to me and smack me right. the face. In fact, you have my permission to do that to anyone wearing a mask while jogging outside.

Just kidding. Sort of. Helena says, yesterday was my sister's birthday and she who's not a member of SBG said to me, you have to explain the sweet baby gang to me because it's my birthday. So I tried and it didn't go so well. This is why I keep, I hear this from people all the time. They tell me about the awkward situations they've been put in because they tried to explain the sweet baby gang. we don't explain it we don't talk about it it just is and we leave it be that's all um and don smith says in my school bethsda high school in maryland i'm sometimes the only one who stands for the pledge of allegiance it's terrible uh yeah i i hear this a lot from kids now i mean this is another difference between now when i now i can remember going to school and the pledge in some

classes there'd be a couple of kids who didn't stand for it and usually was an issue because the teachers would say you've got to stand for the pledge and there would be this tension. But now, from what I'm hearing, increasingly, it's completely flipped. And you've got a couple that may be stand for the pledge and everybody else sits, which is obviously not a good sign about our culture. And I say that even though, you know, I'm an advocate for the pledge because of what it represents and having kids being in a country where most kids, kids won't even stand for it. That's not a good sign. But in a perfect world, I wish that we

could have a conversation about the pledge and the words that it actually contains because, you know, I have been, and it seems almost academic now, but I'm sort of, I've been a critic of the way that the pledge is written, only because there's the one word in the pledge, indivisible, right? The idea that the country is indivisible. That's actually not true. and it's important to note that it's not true. The country is divisible. The states are not bound together forever eternally. They are supposed to, we are supposed to have states' rights. And I believe you should have the right. In a union, if it's a real union, you should have the right to terminate it if you want to. And if the people of the state choose that. So I'm not a fan of the indivisible

line there, but we're not at a point where we can even have a conversation like that when most people won't stand. And, you know, I think the kids who aren't standing, it's not because they're advocates of states' rights. I think I could probably assume that. The good news is that this new Texas law banning abortion after six weeks will save a lot of lives. It's also driving the left insane, which is kind of fun to watch. But the other part of this, the bad news sometimes, is that for some people, when this topic of abortion comes up, even people who are pro-life, They're not always prepared to engage with it and engage with the arguments and represent their side well, which is why the new book, What to Say When, the Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion, was written, and you got to check it out.

It's also why I chose to write the forward for the book because I found it very useful. Even if someone who talks about these issues every single day, I've argued with many people about it. I still found the book to be very useful. It says it's released, it has been already a number one Amazon new release and a number two Amazon bestseller, and it's already on its second printing. It's an easy book to use, tells you what to say, what not to say, and its proven arguments have worked with everybody, including former work. People who've worked in the abortion industry, including plant-parridden workers, have found these arguments compelling and change their ways and left that culture of death, that industry of death. So you know that this book has something for you. So go to Amazon or get it directly from 40 Days for Life at 40 Days for Life.com.

And, you know, you deserve to wake up to the facts, which is why we started our newest podcast, Morning Wire, which has been topping the Apple and Spotify charts since its recent release. It's the only daily news podcast that values your time and the truth. And while we're working overtime to bring you the news you need to know, we need your help to keep the facts trending towards number one. So subscribe and start listening now to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and leave a five-star review if you like what you hear. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You know, if you're still a fan of any Hollywood film franchise, and that would be a good time to abandon ship. I mean, the problem with Hollywood franchises is, first of all, almost all of them are lifeless and redundant, as they exist only to perpetuate and profit off of the brand. Of course, all movies are supposed to make money, but the difference is that franchises like Marvel and Star Wars and others have no purpose beyond that. The next installment in the series doesn't come into being because someone really wants to be. to tell the story and convinces a studio to sign on. Rather, the next installment is the result of people sitting around in a room and saying, you know, we need to ring another 90 minutes out of this.

Anyone got any ideas? As far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to stop watching these glorified cash grabs. The other is that every single one of them has gone or will go woke. In fact, at this point, somewhat incredibly, wokeification comes before profitability on a studio's list of concerns. The films exist to keep the brand relevant and make money off of them, yes. That's the motivation which spurs them into being. That's why they're conceived. But the first priority upon conception is to make sure that the script is orthodox and in keeping with the prevailing doctrines of the day. They'll actually sacrifice some of the profits in order to do this. So in summary, before you sit down to watch any new installment in any Hollywood franchise, you know from the start

that it will be cynical left-wing adjut prop, which was made only to increase the studios' profits and brand awareness, and to propagate deranged leftist values. Any entertainment value outside of all of that will be an accidental byproduct. And of course, if you wish to be entertained, you must first assume the mentality of a person with room temperature IQ and no standards or self-respect. And this mental maneuver proves to be pretty easy for some people, probably because they don't have to assume that mentality so much as they already have it going in. But these are all just things to keep in mind as the new James Bond movie is set to release

next week. I have no specific information confirming this, but I can already guarantee that it will be the wokenest James Bond film in the history of the franchise. It couldn't exist in the year 2021 if it weren't. There have been some indications, though, like the actress who plays the new Bond Girl announced that her character will be the most badass Bond girl in history. Of course, nobody watches James Bond hoping to see a badass Bond girl. They want James Bond to be badass. The Bond Girl is supposed to be pretty. That's really. her only job. At least it was her only job back before wokeness became the overriding priority. Indeed, the push

now is to turn the entire Bond franchise into a girl power vehicle. Lately, the cries have been deafening from the media anyway, not so much from the movie going public, for a female James Bond. With Daniel Craig leaving the role after this next film, it seems inevitable that the character will finally undergo this gender transition. And many outlets have been publishing articles listing helpful suggestions for which actress might be suitable to fill James Bond's shoes. Vogue, for example, says that Kate Blanchett, Victoria Beckham, or

Emily Blunt might be perfect for the role. Yes, because when I think of someone who might be credibly portrayed as a kick-ass action hero who can beat up a room full of bad guys and then drive away in their fancy sports car and make it to the villain's layer just in time to vanquish him and foil his dastardly plot. When I think about that, my mind immediately turns to Kate Blanchett. But this is the problem with female action heroes in general. For all I know, Daniel Craig and Keanu Reeves and The Rock and even Liam Neeson might be big softies who punch like girls in real life, but they have at least a screen presence and an aura that makes them seem like the kinds of guys you wouldn't want to mess with. Does any female actress really have

that quality? Charlie Sterron played an elite spy and assassin in the movie Atomic Blonde a few years ago. Would anyone actually be worried if Charlize Theron was mad at them in real life? Does anyone going to run away and say, I know, I hope Charlie Steyron doesn't beat me up? Does Charlize Theron have any natural intimidation factor? Does Gal Godot? Does Brie Larson? see this is the problem. Most female action movies come with this natural silliness factor. And there's a certain silliness to all action films, but the ones that Reeves and Neeson and Craig star and tend to also reach sometimes successfully, sometimes not, for a certain dark and gritty and serious tone. But you can't often do that with the female-led films. They all have to be

cartoons in the end, because when it comes down to it, you're still watching a hot 100-pound supermodel. do her best Jason Statham impression. And it's just kind of funny. Daniel Craig was asked this question about whether there should be a female James Bond, and he said no, but he made sure to qualify his answer by saying that there ought to be new franchises just as good as James Bond, and similar to James Bond, built around female action stars. He argues that women deserve their own heroes rather than constantly appropriating already

existing male heroes. And he's on the right track with that answer, but he's missing something. and even if he's not missing this, he would never say it out loud anyway. And it's this. Yes, there should be films about female heroes. Yes, they should have their own films rather than simply taking male characters and giving them sex reassignments. But these women heroes should also be heroic in womanly ways. Okay, rather than having female protagonists who are heroically masculine, why not female protagonists who are heroically feminine. Not all heroism involves beating people up and driving cars really fast. In fact, in real

life, the vast majority of heroic acts don't include any of that, unfortunately. I have known many heroic women in my life, and none of them, so far as I know, have ever thrown a punch at all, which is good because they probably break their wrists if they did. Physical courage is but one type. There's also moral courage, emotional courage, intellectual courage, and all of these types of courage come wrapped up in what I would call maternal courage. A good mother, like my wife, for example, shows courage every day, even though she may go her whole life and never have to drop kick any assassin or diffuse any bomb. Now, I realize that it's harder to make a compelling film that showcases the quieter, less physical forms of courage,

But these are the very kinds of courage that society looks to women to exhibit and provide, which means that if we really want women represented on screen as female heroes, and not merely as female heroes pretending to be male heroes, then it might be time to start investing in scripts and stories that have a little more depth and a little more nuance. And that's why, before she even exists, I have to today cancel. the female James Bond or Jane Bond or whatever we're going to call her. And that'll do it for us today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. 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 podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles Show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall 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 Vodowski. The show is edited by Ali Hinkle. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.

The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2021. House Democrats vote to legalize abortion nationwide up until the moment of birth. House Republicans vote to make women sign up for the draft and the Biden administration admits that it has released at least 10,000 illegal aliens into the country just last week. Check it out on the Michael Knowles show.