Ep. 1488 - Why We Should Stop Apologizing for Our History

Today on The Matt Wall Show, we'll dive deeper into the utterly dystopian policies being put in place all over the world in the name of so-called indigenous rights. Also, the Biden regime has decided to leave Trump a nice gift for his first day in office. And that gift is World War III. The Jake Paul, Mike Tyson fight played out exactly as I said it would. We'll talk about the lessons we can learn from that sad spectacle. And a rider for variety is very personally hurt and offended that we submitted our film, MI Racist, for Academy Awards consideration. All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.

Finally, some good news. We can all stop holding our breath. Work can actually begin on the major issues facing our country, particularly our massive national debt. Let me be clear about that. Our nation is completely broke. We're sitting on top of a house of cards that's looking shakier by the day. As long as our economy remains perched on this precarious foundation, there's really only one strategy that makes sense. Diversify your savings. Look, there are so many things that are completely out of our control, even out of our president's control, which is exactly why you need a safe haven for your savings. That's where Birch Gold Group comes

They'll help you convert your IRA or 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold. And here's the best part. It won't cost you a single penny out of pocket to make the switch. Remember, it only takes one card being pulled for this whole thing to come crashing down. Don't wait until it's too late to protect your savings with gold. Text walls to 98, 98, 98.

right now and get your free info kit on Gold Plus. If you act before Black Friday, you'll receive a free one-ounce silver eagle for every $5,000 purchase. As Delioir's exclusive gold partner for the past eight years, I trust Birch Gold with my own savings, and you can too. That's Walsh, 298-98-98 Text Now.

On the rare occasions that I weighed into the political situation of a foreign country, I inevitably receive a lot of very impassioned feedback from the locals. It's especially true when the country is relatively small, discussing political developments in a tiny out of the way country is a bit like talking about, say, anime or the video game industry. Ordinarily, it doesn't take long until I'm swarmed with people who insist that I'm in way over my head. I don't know what I'm talking about. After all, I'm a podcast host in Tennessee talking about some country thousands of miles away.

They're the ones who are actually living through whatever nightmare I'm describing. So naturally they can probably pick me apart on some of the finer details if they want to. And that's why I was surprised to see the reaction after my commentary on New Zealand on Friday. It wasn't what I was expecting. In case you missed it, on Friday I discussed the outbreak of a primal Stone Age war chant on the floor of New Zealand's parliament. Here's a mercifully short clip of the chant if you missed it, which is all over the internet at this point.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Now the lawmakers in that clip who identify as Maori, the allegedly indigenous people of New Zealand, were furious about a bill that was introduced by a politician named David Seymour. The bill had a pretty simple premise that should have been completely uncontroversial. It would restore equal rights to everybody living in New Zealand.

Now on Friday, I pointed out that these supposedly indigenous lawmakers are a shiny example of why it's a bad idea to cow-tow to any demographic group, particularly one with a violent and brutal history like the Mallorys. Even if you spend decades showering them with reparations and affirmative action as New Zealand has, they will still act like petulant children, giving them free stuff only emboldens them further. They'll turn your government into a laughing stock as they demand even more privileges and handouts indefinitely.

It's like a real life version of the children's book, if you give them else a cookie, which has proven to be one of the most prophetic works of literature of our time for my money. Now, what I didn't realize when I made these points is that

Actually, the situation in New Zealand is even worse than I thought. It has deteriorated in ways that are actually difficult to comprehend if you live in the United States, even given our trajectory towards racial equity and DEI and so on. And as demonstrated by the comments I received, all this is happening to the dismay and bewilderment of many people living in the country.

But it has happened to them in the same way it's happening to alleged colonizers all over the world from Canada to Australia. This is a global problem that's getting much worse with each passing year. We're not just talking about reparations here as unjust as reparations are. And we're not just talking about the denial of equal rights as serious as that is. Those are abstract terms that paper over what's actually happening, which is truly disturbing.

So here's just one example that somebody living in New Zealand sent in in response to the commentary. This may be one of the most dystopian, vindictive policies you'll ever hear about. And it's the kind of thing that can happen when your government decides that indigenous rights or the rights of any special demographic group matter more than equal rights.

So it turns out that without holding any kind of vote, New Zealand's public health system has decided to allow so-called mowery patients to skip ahead in the wait list for surgery. And solely because these patients identify as mowery instead of as colonizers, quote unquote, hospitals will give them preferential treatment.

for medical treatments. And this change happened in secret. It was only exposed when some reporters received a tip about what was going on. As the Guardian reports, quote, a new algorithm used in some New Zealand hospitals means Mallory and Pacific patients for elective surgery will be pushed higher on waiting lists than those of other ethnicities with identical other factors like level of sickness, location, and time on a wait list. At this stage, it will only be applied to elective surgeries and not to emergencies.

Now, last line is supposed to make this seem better somehow, but it doesn't. First of all, the fact that a surgery can be classified as elective doesn't mean it's not an important surgery. A hip replacement surgery, for example, which is necessary to alleviate extraordinary debilitating pain, is considered elective.

So is gallbladder surgery. So elective surgeries are often a big deal. They're often medically necessary, even if they are classified as elective. And there's no universe in which someone's race should decide who gets access to them. Unless, of course, you just want white people to suffer for the sake of it, which is the idea here.

On top of that, this is clearly a stepping stone to making race-based healthcare the norm across the board. If they're willing to delay an elective surgery for a white guy, why exactly wouldn't they delay his emergency surgery too? What exactly is the reason that wouldn't be acceptable?

Nobody's explained that. And we know why, it's because that's coming next. Hospital administrators in New Zealand apparently thought that they could implement an algorithm like this without telling anyone. And once it was exposed, they weren't ashamed in any way. Instead, they doubled down on it. For example, a professor of public health at the University of Auckland gave this comment to the Guardian, quote, we've had these inequitable differences in health outcomes for decades. And it doesn't appear that we've been able to affect the changes that we want.

If you don't make these courageous decisions like introducing a ethnic dimension to the decision-making, we'll never make the changes that we want to make in terms of health outcomes. So to restate, he's saying it's courageous to introduce an ethnic dimension to the decision-making at a hospital. So that's either a quote from early 90s Rwanda or New Zealand today. Take your pick.

Now, the thing with a surgery wait list is that it's a zero-sum game, obviously. When you give somebody a boost, you're hurting somebody else. So, the solution is telling these Maori people to get in line and treat them like anybody else. Like, maybe they should have some self-respect instead of constantly freeloading and demanding special privileges.

They don't need an equity adjuster that prevents a white guy from getting the surgery he needs. They need to take some responsibility for their own culture, and it's many problems. And if they're having unequal health outcomes, if Maori people are often more unhealthy than other people, which is the reasoning that they're giving for making this change, well then, maybe you should take responsibility, live a healthier lifestyle.

But in New Zealand's media, which is mostly controlled by the government, the equity adjuster is being portrayed as a positive development. The Maori are happy about it, we're told. And that's all that matters, of course, watch.

equity adjuster weightless tool and it's being used to prioritize patients for non-urgent surgeries in Auckland and it takes into account a range of factors so including clinical needs so how sick a person is as well as their socioeconomic status where they live whether they're in a rural location or in a city and also their ethnicity so it's sort of like a point system

And within this system, people of Pacific and Pacific Islander and Maori heritage are awarded an additional point based on their ethnic background. And that goes into the overall calculation of where they sit on the surgery waiting list.

There are some people that have have backed those comments that calling this policy discriminatory, but certainly among Pacific Islanders that I've spoken to, they're very much in support of this policy and say that it's long overdue that something is done. Okay, well that makes it okay.

Yeah, the people that are being discriminated against say that it's discriminatory, which it is by definition. But it's okay because the people that are getting the privilege are happy about it. Well, I talked to the Pacific Islanders and they said they're happy that they get to cut in front of the line and get the surgery first. So if they're happy about it, then what's the problem?

Now this is what those politicians who are doing the Hawke and Parliament were upset about. They don't want this kind of overt, anti-white racial discrimination to end because it benefits them.

After all the billions of dollars in reparations payments and all the apologizing and land acknowledgments and flying them out reflag, they still want to deny the colonizers, quote unquote, access to surgeries. This is why they're opposing a bill that would restore equal protection unto the law. Now from the comments I received, this is just one of about a million other examples of the indignities that people living in New Zealand have to deal with.

One of them reads, quote, I work for a council in New Zealand. It's super racist. We have a whole team dedicated to grifting and apartheid. Our senior leadership team are all on board with the grift. It's disgusting. Another reads, it's horrendous here in New Zealand. I work for a government department before and after every meeting, we're required to say a Maori prayer. Regular cultural supervision is mandatory.

Here's another quote, Matt is spot on here in New Zealand. We've apologized, pay compensation, seen privileging of the Mallory perspective at all levels of government, media, academia, and bureaucracy for decades. It's never enough. It just leads to more in escalating demands.

Now it goes on and on and on, many hundreds, thousands of comments really like that. Many people also pointed out that New Zealand has something called Maori electorates, which are basically DEI for the government. There are seven Maori electorates in New Zealand and 65 normal electorates. In the Maori electorates, only self-identifying Maori people can vote.

That's how the woman who tore up that bill got into parliament. So they rigged the whole system to get these Mallory in government, and then Mallory turned around and turned the government into a laughing stock. Now people made a few other important points in response to my commentary as well, one of them.

is that it's pretty much impossible to define who qualifies as Mallory anymore, as you'd expect. They have the same Elizabeth Warren problem that we do. But maybe the most striking comments were the ones where people said that in New Zealand, you're not really allowed to be honest about any of this. One of the comments reads quote, so refreshing in New Zealand, we can't mention this. Thanks, Matt, for making this clear to everybody.

And here's another great video, Matt. Come down these ways and do a talk, please. If we explain New Zealand like this in New Zealand, we get labeled a racist. It's not racism, it's truth. David Seymour is part Maori.

Now, there are hundreds of comments like this. In New Zealand, you're apparently not allowed to mock all of this madness and these mowry chants as ridiculous as the chants are, by the way. You're not supposed to tell them to stop freeloading. You're not supposed to tell them even that they should be treated equally. They should be given equal treatment as everybody else. You're not supposed to say that.

And I was unfortunate as that is for the people living in New Zealand. The truth is that the problem is much bigger than any one country. It's now endemic to the Western world. Exacting vengeance against the colonizers is now an explicit goal of public policy. And left-wing politicians are latching on to any pretext they can find in order to justify more of these crackdowns. A year ago, for example, I went into some detail about the mass graves hoax that's been unfolding in Canada.

The idea was that ground penetrating radar has supposedly found graves at various sites that were once occupied by Canada's residential schools. These were boarding schools that were funded by the Canadian government and run by Christian churches. And according to the Canadian media and Canadian politicians, the graves provided evidence that Indians endured horrible abuses at these schools to the point that Indian children were buried on site. Dozens of churches were promptly set on fire in Canada, which the country's prime minister said was an understandable response.

Now, the problem is that to this day, none of this has panned out. They have not found a single confirmed gravesite at any of these schools. All they have are suspicions, which always turn out to be false. In Kamloops, for example, we were told that ground penetrating radar had supposedly identified hundreds of unmarked graves. They also reportedly found the tooth of a juvenile nearby.

But a year or so later, we learned that the tooth actually belonged to an animal and that the unmarked graves were really a septic field. Now, how has Canada's government responded to these revelations? You could probably guess. They're responding the way that they respond when you question the narrative on climate change. They're accusing you of denialism.

In fact, members of Canada's parliament are proposing legislation that will make it illegal to tell the truth about the complete lack of unmarked graves at these residential schools. They want to label the truth about this subject as hate speech. Watch. There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

This MP already got the House of Commons to acknowledge genocide happened at residential schools. Now she wants Parliament to legislate denialism as hate speech. That kind of speech is violent.

and re-traumatizes those who attended residential school who constantly have their experience of genocide left out for debate. But author Michelle Goode, who wrote an award-winning book about residential schools, says Ottawa needs to take this new threat of denialism seriously. My mother watched her friend Lily, a hemorrhaged death from tuberculosis at the Onion Lake Residential School. We've known this.

to how people respond to our lived experience as though it never happened is devastating. Good says, unless that rhetoric is outlawed, the country will never be able to achieve meaningful reconciliation. Well, she says lived experience, but maybe your lived experience didn't happen. Maybe it wasn't an experience at all, except in your fevered imagination.

Again, the point here is to provide a pretext for a wave of anti-Christian violence and ultimately destroy Canada as a Western country. That's their only goal and you can see it everywhere in Canada. For example, the country recently implemented indigenous sentencing circles for serious crimes, including assault and theft. This is where instead of a judge sentencing someone, they sit in a circle and talk about how tough life must be for the criminal watch.

Whether you've been to court or not, you can probably still picture it, that wooden-paneled courtroom with a judge sitting up high looking down and delivering a sentence. But for the first time, this courthouse was host to an indigenous proceeding, and it's the subject of a new documentary. It's so powerful that they're owning it. If we can help heal the victim and heal the offender, then all of a sudden we can work towards solution.

It's called a sentencing circle where an indigenous offender who has pled guilty joins their victim, a judge, lawyers, police officers, and community members impacted, all sitting at the same level discussing the crime and how to address it. I spoke with circlekeepers Ramona Cardinal and Stacey Harrison from satellite.

And it's like, how do we address the issue? The first issues people only make up 8% of the population in Canada. And yet we have an 85% population from when it comes to crime and courts and the jail system. So what's wrong with this picture? Not shutting shame on them or being punitive. We are simply trying to get to the truth.

to help them to process it and grow from it. We get creative with some of our recommendations, like, yeah, go and cut wood for an elder, go, you know, go shovel the sidewalk, stuff like that, just so they have some ownership. So the indigenous activist there says, if I had, if I remember the number correctly, he said 8%, only 8% of the country is indigenous, so-called indigenous, yet did he say 85%?

They make up 85% of the criminals or something. Whatever the actual number is, and then he says, well, what's wrong with this picture? Yeah, a lot is wrong with it. Turns out the indigenous people are committing a lot of crimes. That's what's wrong with it. Why are your people committing so many crimes? Maybe they should stop doing that. You have a problem in your community. You need to turn your gaze back at yourself and ask yourself why that's happening.

Oh, but we can't do that. No, no, no. Indigenous people, they have no problems over their own. They don't do anything wrong. They never do anything wrong. They can't possibly do anything wrong. Everything that happens to them, anything they do actually, anything they do is actually the fault of somebody else.

And as the video continues, they go on to claim that actually these sentencing circles are even harsher than Canada's normal court system. And actually, unfortunately for Canadians, that might be true. Even outside of these sentencing circles, traditional courts in Canada are allowing so-called indigenous people to commit crimes with impunity. Recently in Canada, for example, a man slashed the throat of a complete stranger on the train.

And the victim was 65 years old and they sound very severely, actually nearly severed the artery on his neck. But the judge decided that setting the perpetrator to federal prison would be a bad idea. Why? Well, quoting from the Calgary Herald, quote, the judge said the generational trauma European society has caused to indigenous communities had to be addressed. Quote, the history of colonialism has to be taken into account, he said.

Therefore, the stabrer received a sentence of less than two years in a provincial jail. Yes, the history of colonialism and generational trauma have to be taken into account when you're dealing with somebody who tries to murder a guy on the train. Maybe it's okay to stab random white people. That's the message they're sending when they refuse to throw this criminal in prison for the rest of his life. Yeah, this kind of sentencing is happening all over the place. In Australia, the judges are allowing criminals to put on performances in the courtroom.

before they're allowed to go free. As the nightly reports quote, a New South Wales District Court judge invited a teenage criminal appearing before her to be sentenced over violent home invasions to give a welcome to the country in the middle of her courtroom. The 17-year-old teen had pleaded guilty to breaking and entering the homes of a 92-year-old and an 88-year-old woman who he also admitted to sexually touching.

The elderly women were left traumatized. A welcome to the country usually occurs at the beginning of a formal event and can take many forms, including singing, dancing, smoking, ceremonies, and or a speech. It's performed by traditional owners or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who have been given permission from traditional owners to welcome visitors to their country.

So the judge lets this guy do a fun little dance and then releases him on parole after sentencing him as a child. This is a 17 year old who sexually touched, quote unquote, otherwise known as sexually assaulted, elderly women. And instead of throwing him in prison for the rest of his life, he gets to effectively become an officer of the courts and perform some ceremony to make a mockery of the entire judicial system. And then he walks free.

Now, the point of all this couldn't be any clearer. Last year, there was a referendum in Australia called the indigenous voice referendum. It would have modified Australia's constitution in order to create more carve-outs for so-called indigenous people. The referendum failed, thankfully, in part because its backers were so explicit about what they were attempting. Professor named Marsha Langton, for example, stated, quote, people who were opposing the voice are saying that we're destroying the fabric of their sacred constitution. Yes, that's right. That's exactly what we're doing.

Now, pretty much anywhere you look at Australia in day-to-day life, you can see how this strategy is being implemented. They even do land acknowledgments on buses in Australia to send the message that Australians don't actually own their land. Watch.

Oh, the land was never seated. Yeah, but you know what? It was taken. It was conquered. That's the way it goes when it's conquered. You don't get to sit there and say, we didn't seat it. That's how conquering works. And you should know that because if you're an indigenous person, then your ancestors did quite a lot of conquering themselves. And so that's the game. That's the way it goes.

Now, just like in New Zealand, all of this deference doesn't accomplish anything. It's never enough. The indigenous folks just keep coming up with more and more demands, which usually entails giving them more and more money. And as one Australian politician pointed out recently, it's not clear exactly where that money is going. Australia even set up something called the National Indigenous Australians Agency with the goal of advancing reconciliation. And now billions of dollars are, of course, unaccounted for. Watch.

For the 2022-23 financial year, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA, total resourcing was $4.5 billion on programs. The results rank failure. Where did the money go? The closing the gap annual report is clear. A total failure in closing the gap. Only four of 17 targets met or goals achieved, and some gaps actually worsening.

Now, I'm not gonna play the guy's full speech, but he goes on to draw the wrong lesson from all this. He points out that the indigenous agency is embezzling money, but his solution is to give the money to indigenous people directly. In other words, even as Australian politicians point out the obvious fraud of reconciliation, they still want to participate in it. They still want to pay for the alleged sins of their ancestors. They still agree with the underlying premise that colonization was a horrific evil that we have to make amends for.

But that isn't true. European colonization has been on balance, a force for good in the world. If you don't believe that, try comparing the life expectancy of indigenous Australians, Canadians or New Zealanders pre-colonization to what they are now. They're doing a lot better today than they were hundreds of years ago by pretty much any metric. They're not bartering with severed heads anymore in New Zealand or eating the flesh of their enemies. That's progress.

They're using money for commerce now rather than severed heads. Money that often they don't even have to earn. And instead of doing their haka dance half naked outside of their mud huts, they're doing it in the halls of parliament. That's what the kids call a glow up, isn't it? Now the only way to move past this endless guilt is to recognize that these so-called colonizers never committed any unique acts of evil.

Get whatever alleged atrocities they can be charged with, slavery, torture, mass murder, etc. We're committed often in much more brutal forms by the natives that they conquered. But there are many unique blessings that colonization has brought to the world. That list would include pretty much every conceivable thing that makes our lives enjoyable and worth living today. You name it, you have colonization to thank for that.

It's time for us to start taking pride in our history and speaking up to defend our ancestors. I mean, there's a crazy thought. We also have to start being honest about these native cultures that are so often romanticized and idealized. These were not peaceful people living in harmony with each other in nature. The real world did not bear any resemblance to Disney's Pocahontas.

In reality, these were violent, brutal, primitive conquerors who were, in turn, conquered by a superior civilization that was at the absolutely very worst, just as brutal as their own, though often they were downright gentle and progressive by comparison. All across the world, both sides slaughtered and enslaved. That's the way it happened everywhere in the world among all people.

But only one side had a propensity to eat their captives or rip their still beating hearts out of their chests. And it wasn't the Europeans doing that. I can tell you that.

I've gone through all these examples to make the point, as I did on Friday, that we need to avoid a similar regression here. We're already seeing signs of it happening, of course. Kamala Harris openly proposed allocating disaster relief on the basis of equity. During the lockdowns, government scientists floated the idea of giving certain demographic groups preferential access to the COVID shot. Not that that would have actually been much of a blessing, but they thought that it was.

The Biden-Harris administration provided various benefits, including farm aid to certain people on the basis of skin color and so on. But as bad as things have become, this cancer hasn't yet metastasized here to the extent that it has across the world in places like Canada, New Zealand and Australia. And one of the top priorities of the incoming Trump administration should be to ensure that it never does. Now let's get to our five headlines.

A question I get a lot from my audience, especially after they've seen one of my movies, is how can I get into the conservative fight? Well, for starters, you need to be strategic about where your money is going. Most credit cards are funneling millions to left-wing causes and candidates, hoping you don't notice, but now you can align your spending with your values.

It's a good looking card also, bright red with the we the people on the front. Coin works everywhere. Visa is accepted and comes with 100% U.S.-based customer service and consumer protections. Thousands of patriots are earning cash back while fighting the liberal agenda. The demand for this card is so high that there is now a wait list. This is a movement. Be a part of it. Go to coign.com to join the wait list. Be sure to select Daily Wire in the How Did You Hear About Section. Terms apply. Go to coin.com slash disclosures for full details.

Fox News reports President Biden has authorized Ukraine's military to use U.S. provided long-range missiles on targets inside Russian territory. The senior U.S. officials said the weapons will mostly focus on the Kursk region of Western Russia. The decision was first reported by the New York Times. According to the official, Biden's decision was spurred by the Russian decision to invite 10,000 North Korean soldiers into the fight against Ukraine and Kursk. Second official told Fox that it is unclear if Biden plans to approve the use of the missiles outside of the Kursk region.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said the US is approval of such missile strikes would constitute an act of war. He has yet to react to Biden's announcement on Sunday. Biden's announcement also came just hours after Russia concluded one of its largest missile and drone attacks in months, launching over 200 targeting Ukraine's power and energy infrastructure.

What's happening here is exactly what it sounds like and what it looks like. The Biden administration is trying to start World War III on its way out the door. So you know all that stuff, this is a really important point because all that stuff that you, that we've heard about a peaceful transfer of power, you know, and they're bragging about, it's the same, Kamala Harris did this in her concession speech and we've heard it from Biden and,

some of the leftist media that, well, on our side, we believe in a peaceful transfer of power. Well, that's total nonsense, of course. Now, sure, they're not gonna riot outside of the Capitol building. Maybe they will, but that remains to be seen. But even if they don't, they are going to do everything they can to spark a global war between a bunch of nuclear-armed superpowers.

I'll take the riot at the Capitol over that, personally. I don't know about you. So this is their peaceful transfer of power. The peaceful transfer involves doing something that could kill tens of millions of people. So we've heard of mostly peaceful riots and now we have a mostly peaceful nuclear war is where we're headed. And that's what they're trying to start.

And there is of course no excuse for this administration to put in place any significant changes in policy given that they won't be around in two months. Part of the peaceful transfer, that's why we call it a transfer, you're transferring the power and that means that you should be gearing up to hand off the reins to the next guy, not doing stuff at the last minute that will intentionally make it harder for the next guy.

If you're doing that, that's not a peaceful transfer of power. That's not what that's supposed to be. And that's if you're making any big change to policy, but a change in policy that has enormous global implications. I mean, that's just evil. It's evil. And why are they doing it? Why do that right now?

You have two months left in office, and I'm not even talking about Biden personally, because we know that he's gone, but his handlers, the puppeteers, why do this right now? Two months out.

Well, I think there are two reasons, and one, the biggest one is the most obvious one, is that they're trying to screw Trump over. They're trying to, you know, Trump has promised a more peaceful world when he's in office, like we had in his first term. So their idea is to make sure that that promise can't be kept by starting World War III before he even gets in office. And even better for them, and this is why they're waiting till now to do it,

even better for them is to set World War III in motion, right, to knock over the domino, but then leave before any kind of official war sort of breaks out. But you've set it in motion, maybe irreparably, but we won't actually be in the middle of World War III until Trump's been in office for five months and then they could turn around and say, you see, this is all his fault.

And that's what, I mean, when I say they're evil, this is the level of evil that we're talking about. They will happily get 100 million people killed for the sake of hurting Trump. I mean, World War III, actual World War III, you're talking about tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, people dying most likely. And they would happily do that.

like there's no price they wouldn't pay. If you came to them and said, would you, what if in order to ruin Trump's second term, you had to kill three billion people? What if you had to kill half of the globe? They wouldn't even have to think about it. It wouldn't be worth thinking about. That's how evil these people are. They don't value human life. They don't care about human life. And whatever it takes to advance their political

you know, cause. And then on top of it, I think that this is really, this is like a secondary benefit is that they're trying to help their friends in the defense industry. They want to make sure that, you know, the cash cow is intact. They want to keep the money and the weapons flowing. And so that's the other thing too. So there's two big reasons.

One thing that they're certainly not trying to do is calm tensions, prevent more people from dying, bring about any kind of peaceful. They're obviously not trying to do that and they haven't been doing that this whole time. So it's just, I mean, my God, these people are absolute monsters, just total monsters.

Okay, time for a quick update. On Friday, we talked about the Jake Paul Mike Tyson fight, which was set to happen that night. And I said that I was, if you watched on Friday, you may remember, I said I was extremely confident that Jake Paul would win because Mike Tyson is too old. And it's really as simple as that. He's almost 60. And 60 year old men don't win professional boxing matches. Okay, that's all. That's it. He's gonna lose. And I made the same prediction on Twitter.

And I was roundly mocked and derided for it at the time. Lots of people claiming that I don't know anything about boxing, which I don't, but I still knew that Mike Tyson would lose and lose easily. And of course he did. You know, that's the, as I'm sure you heard, the fight happened and he lost. I mean, it was, I actually watched this debacle

And I didn't watch it because I was expecting it to be any kind of real fight. I just wanted to see what I was hoping is that it would be an entertaining debacle, maybe at least. And it wasn't even that, actually, it turns out. And on top of that, Netflix had all these buffering problems. And so you couldn't even see half of it as a total disaster for Netflix. But they're claiming it was the most viewed fight of all time, which it probably was if you consider

In the past, boxing was pay-per-view. You had to like call up and pay, you know, call a phone number and pay for pay-per-view, pay-per-view event. And you just had fewer people doing that than would watch something on Netflix. So they're claiming most viewed boxing match of all time, more of the most viewed sporting events of all time, of any sport.

And it was a total, it was awful. It was just boring and terrible. And Tyson was totally dominated. It wasn't close. It went to a decision, but only because Jake Paul clearly chose not to try to knock him out. Even at the end, like he stopped boxing and sort of bowed in a gesture of goodwill and humility, bowed to Mike Tyson and

Yeah, which I thought was, I mean, it was a classy thing to do. It also kind of, this is sort of a side note, but one thing that's come out of this fight and the lead up to it is people just, a lot of people just really hate Jake Paul.

And I'll be honest, I haven't really followed, I haven't followed his career or his brother, I don't, you know, I had nothing against them, I just haven't followed their career at all. So I'm very much just looking from the outside at all this, but the amount of hate that people have for this guy, it's, it's, I mean, I was reading a couple, I forget which outlet it was, but some major outlet that did an article about

the fight and the whole first paragraph is just this sort of like violent fantasy about punching Jake Paul in the face and talking about what a punchable face he has and how badly the writer wanted to see this guy get beat up and I'm like, what is that okay? And this gets printed by a major publication. The whole point of the article is just you really hate this one guy and you wanna see him get beat up but he wasn't and you're sad about it.

So I don't quite get that. You know, to be honest, everyone hates Jake Paul. I mean, it seems whatever. I don't get it. And then Mike Tyson is this totally beloved figure. Everybody loves him. And it's like,

And then if you ask anyone, what do you hate Jake Paul? Why do you hate him so much? From what I've seen, they'll dig up like, well, you know, he did this on his YouTube channel and look at these problematic posts that he's sent in the past and look at all this stuff. Well, you know, Mike Tyson also has what we might call a bit of a problematic past. Okay. So that doesn't count. And yet we hate this guy because he made YouTube videos he didn't like. I don't quite get it. But anyway,

It was Mike Tyson, he looked 60 years old in the ring, because he is, or almost 60. He looked slow and lethargic and weak, and it was just really bad. So all that to say, I told you so. So I just wanted to circle back, I wanna make sure I took time out of the show to circle back around and say, I told you so. And I wanna say that because it's fun to say, but also because it's important.

It's important that I say I told you so. It's very important. It's important that the world knows that I did say it and that I did in fact tell you so.

And let me tell you something else. All you people, don't try to claim now that you knew that Tyson would lose, and that nobody really believed that he would win. Because I have people telling me that on Twitter now, because of course, after the fight, I immediately, I was waiting. Like, I'll tell you, I'll be honest, I had the tweet drafted before the fight even started. I had the quote in my prediction with told you so, and I was like, ready.

That's really the whole reason I watched the fight, actually. It was mainly that. I just wanted to write right at the moment it was over. I wanted to get that told you so out there, because I'm a very mature person. I'm a very mature person. But, and then I, all these responses from people saying, well, we knew, where do you talk? We, of course, everyone. Of course, we knew he wouldn't win. We just really wanted him to win. That's all. We knew this was, oh, shut up. Don't, please, don't, don't tell me that.

a lot of people legitimately thought that Tyson would win. And we're legitimately angry that anyone would predict otherwise, okay? Not just thought he would win, but we're supremely, arrogantly confident that he would not only win, but win in dominating fashion. So don't backtrack now. Don't try to walk it back, okay? Too late for that.

Own it, own it, you know, when you have a bad take and you're wrong, you gotta own it. I mean, I've never had a bad take that I've had to own, but if I ever did, if I ever had a bad take ever in my life, I would own it. And it really goes to show that, and this is actually the point, aside from what I told you so, the lesson, the moral at the end of the story is that

It's basically what I said on Friday that so many people in this country are totally delusional about the concept and reality of aging. They just refuse to accept it. I mean, we really are a society that refuses to accept it. And that's how we end up with a government run by 97-year-olds. It's how we end up with a senile president. It's how we end up with a bunch of

50-year-old women walking around who look like the evil puppet from Saul because of all the fillers and Botox and all that stuff. It's how we end up with Madonna, still trying to be a sex symbol at the age of 65. And it's how you end up with the tragic spectacle of a boxer 30 years past his prime, stumbling around on the ring and only escaping without getting knocked out because the other guy took pity on him.

All of this happens solely because we are a culture that refuses to just age with dignity. A culture that refuses to be even mildly realistic about what aging means. And part of that is, and why is that happening?

Why did, again, all the people, that's all Mike Tyson, he could still, he could beat up any, he hasn't lost a step. He hasn't lost a step. But do you think he's literally magical? Do you think he has magic powers? Everybody loses a step once you get your physical prime as a man is, you know, probably your mid to late 20s.

Now that doesn't mean that you have to be out of shape and that you have to get fat and all that as you get older doesn't mean that. You could still stay in good shape. But your physical prime is in your mid to late 20s. And so if you're not there, you're not in your physical prime. I'm not anymore. Again, doesn't mean I have to be fat. Doesn't mean I have to be out of shape.

But I'm not ever going to be, it's like mid to late 20s was the most in shape and strongest and fastest that you ever could be.

Now, it could be that in your mid, in your 20s, you were a fat slob and that you didn't get your act together until later in life, which means that in that case, you might end up being in better shape than you were in your 20s, but you could have been an even better shape than you are now in your 20s if you had taken your health seriously back then. And that's fine.

Okay, it doesn't. Even me saying this now with the evidence of Mike, I'm still going to get comments from people saying, well, that's not true. That's not true of everybody. Well, you don't. Well, you, my grandfather, he was, he could bench press with the best of them until he was 75. But just stop, please, everybody.

It's fine. It's not attack. Just to say that aging is real and that you start to physically, you know, you start to slow down and you start to get, you get, it's just, it's not attacks on an insult. It's just, it's just true. Like, am I attacking anyone or being ageist? If I point out that you're not gonna live to the age of 150, is that mean? Is that ageist? Is that, no, it's just, you're not.

because you're a mortal person. And there are laws of biology and physics that come into play here. And you can't get around them, unfortunately. So let's just be, that's all, let's all just be realistic about it.

And so yeah, I told you so. You know what keeps me up at night thinking about how we spend our time instead of mindlessly scrolling through streaming services looking for something worth watching? What if you could use that time to truly enrich your mind? I'm talking about understanding the foundations of our civilization, history, economics, great literature at the US Constitution. That's why I'm thrilled to tell you about Hillsdale College's incredible offer over 40 free online courses covering the most vital and enduring subjects. When I explore CS Lewis's profound insights, dive into the wisdom of Genesis,

understand what our Constitution really means, or study the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. It's all there, and yes, it's completely free. Let me personally recommend their newest course, Marxism, socialism, and communism. This isn't your typical online class. It's six compelling documentary-style episodes where Hillsdale's expert professors of history, politics, and economics break down everything from Marx's original writings to the brutal realities of the Soviet Union and communist China.

to help you understand how many current political ideas trace back to Marxism while showing crucial differences from Marx's original thought. In today's world, understanding these ideas and recognizing their inherent flaws isn't just academic. It's essential. Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to start. It's free. Easy to get started. That's hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to start hillsdale.edu slash Walsh.

Next week is Thanksgiving and at Dilly Wire, we're getting you ready for that conversation with those members of the family, you know, the one, the aunt with her unhinged Facebook post complaining about Trump's glorious return as a 47th president. The cousin proudly rocking his vintage white guys for Kamala t-shirt.

Get the facts that will leave your liberal relatives nervously reaching for their gravy boat. With their new annual memberships, you'll get to uncensored, ad-free access to daily shows from most trusted voices and conservative media. And after dinner, you can gather everyone around to watch MIRASIS, the number one documentary of the decade. Don't just survive Thanksgiving dinner. Dominate it. Join today at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

Well, I recently announced that we had submitted our film, MI Racist, for Academy Award consideration. Why did we submit it? Well, because as a widely released theatrical film, it is eligible for consideration. As the number one film in its genre this decade, it is undoubtedly worthy of consideration. And as a good film, it deserves to not only be nominated, but to win. When it comes to sparking conversations and moving the culture, no other documentary this year comes anywhere close stars.

And I may be biased in that assessment, but I'm also obviously right. In other words, to put it more succinctly, we submitted it for the Academy Awards consideration because why the hell wouldn't we? It can be nominated, and by any fair objective measure, it should be. It's that simple. However, the writer Clayton Davis over at Variety

Well, he doesn't agree. In fact, poor Clayton is offended that we would dare see ourselves as worthy of any awards, much less the hallowed Academy Awards. He feels very strongly that conservative filmmakers need to know their place. They need to stay out on the fringes, out in their ghettos, away from polite society. And he made that perfectly clear in his piece and variety titled, Matt Walsh is a hypocrite for submitting MI racist to the Oscars. Why are right wingers seeking liberal validation?

Now, that title may sound like some sort of intentional self-parody, but it's not. Well, it is self-parody, but not intentional. Clayton writes,

And it's an annual ritual from the Oscars to the Emmys to the Grammys. Commentators use YouTube podcasts and op-eds to denounce Hollywood as a cesspool of liberalism and a bubble of elite self-congratulation. Yet here's the irony. Many of those same voices who openly deride the industry quickly seek its validation when they enter its arena.

Case in point, conservative media company, the Daily Wire, recently submitted the satirical documentary, MI Racist, featuring Matt Walsh, an anti-transgender commentator for Oscar consideration. Oh my God, can you imagine Amelia Perez star Carla Sofia Gascon being forced to share the same air as him? Now you can imagine Clayton repeatedly fainting as he typed those words. He is horrified, scandalized.

Here, Clayton is unironically playing the role of like the stuffy snob in an 80s movie who's strenuously objects to those troublemaking rascals coming around here where they don't belong. Who do they think they are? They shouldn't be here. This is downright improper, improper, I say. You can see Clayton with the back of his hand against his forehead.

face flush with outrage, furiously fanning himself. He continues, though the film directed by Justin Folk has indeed found financial success, documentaries like Schwann lose Beijing 22 and Brett Morgan's David Bowie doc, Moonage Daydream, outperformed it globally, grossing $22 million and $13 million this decade respectively.

And it's worth keeping in mind that box office successes don't automatically translate to awards recognition if it did. Marvel Studios would have countless best picture statues by now. The real story here is the apparent contradiction. Conservative voices denounce Woah Hollywood while actively seeking its approval.

Now, I don't need to be smurched either of the movies he mentioned there. I'm sure they're fine films. I haven't seen them. But I will say that to begin with, neither of those movies came out in 2024, so they wouldn't be in the discussion for the Academy Award this year.

So it's not clear why he even brought them up. Also, Beijing 2022 is a documentary about the winter Olympics in Beijing. From what I can tell, it made exactly $0 in this country. Its whole gross came from China and Japan, which is what you'd expect. So comparing our domestic gross to the domestic gross of a Chinese movie in China is in a word stupid. Another word might be desperate.

Meanwhile, Moonage Daydream, another movie that did not come out this year, grossed $4.2 million in this country. So we tripled its domestic total. It earned about 13.1 million worldwide when you add together the 40 other countries where it was theatrical, at least. So another way of putting it is that we did almost as much in one country as Moonage Daydream did in 40.

So if Clayton is trying to prove how incredibly impressive our film's performance was, he's doing a great job. Reading on.

Quote, going down what can only be described as the dark web, I came across a video of Walsh's reaction to the Oscars when Bong June Hose parasite won Best Picture in 2020, the first non-English language film to achieve the honor. The day after the Oscars, Walsh posted a video titled The Incredible Heroism of Hollywood. Despite claiming he only spent 90 seconds watching the ceremony, he dedicated 30 minutes to critiquing a moment in which Sigourney Weaver declared, all women are superheroes.

This line struck a nerve. Walsh dismissed it as utterly vacuous and meaningless and continued to probe his viewers with pointed questions such as, is Eileen Warnos a superhero?

By the way, when he says he went down what can only be described as the dark web, he means YouTube. You went to my YouTube channel, Clayton, okay? You weren't on some sort of dangerous journey into the unknown. It's called You Were On YouTube. Also, yeah, it is objectively very dumb to say that all women are superheroes. That would in fact mean that serial killers who happen to be women are superheroes.

Now maybe Clayton is confused by this point because he has no problem with serial killers, especially ones who kill men. So I'll put it in terms that might get the point across to somebody like him. If all women are superheroes, Clayton, that means that Melania Trump is a superhero. Now you certainly can't agree with that, can you? Sure, a female serial killer might be a superhero, but a female with the last name Trump.

Now for that, you certainly would make an exception, which means you and I both agree that all women are not superheroes, although I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the subject at hand. So you seem to be arguing that I'm a hypocrite for submitting my hit film for Oscar consideration since I once mocked an acceptance speech given by somebody at the Oscars. I mean, is that the standard now?

must every potential Oscar nominee not only praise the Oscars, but also praise every single thing ever done or said at the Oscars? I mean, it's really embarrassing. I'm truly embarrassed for you, Clayton. One of us has to be, because I know you've long since lost your capacity for shame. Continuing, quote, but now the Daily Wire co-founded by Ben Shapiro is also making strides in film production despite spending years on lambasting Hollywood as a liberal echo chamber.

But we will see them submit their films to various industry competitions, seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy of seeking approval from an industry they claim to despise. I can't wait for the year they throw a temper tantrum, losing the palm they are at cans. Their underlying message seems to be, these awards mean nothing unless I can win one.

Now, before I respond to that, I'm going to backtrack and read a line from earlier in the article that I skipped because it's all part of the same theme here in this portion of the article. He said, quote, so which is it? Do the Oscars truly lack relevance or do they need to validate right-wing work to prove its legitimacy? Well, yeah, Clayton, those are indeed the options.

The Oscars are either completely irrelevant or they must be at least willing to, as you put it, validate work produced by conservatives. So the Academy Awards are either dedicated to recognizing and awarding the best and most important films of the year, regardless of the politics of the people who make them, or the Academy Awards are an insular left-wing ceremony where films are not recognized based on their merits, but rather on the ideological conformity of the filmmakers. And in the latter case,

Yeah, they would certainly be irrelevant. So the actual irony here is that you are taking exception to the claim that the Academy Awards have a liberal bias while at the same time admitting that they do. So you are at once mocking conservatives who say that Hollywood discriminates based on politics and simultaneously saying that conservatives need to stay the hell out of Hollywood because we don't belong there.

Now, if you thought that Clayton had not yet sufficiently made the point that he is a pretentious dork, well, wait until you hear how he wraps all this up.

And as award season progresses, if or when, and my racist doesn't receive the recognition its backers believe it deserves, or doesn't appear on varieties inevitable snubs and surprises list, the outcry will likely follow the same script. In an era where conservatives champion the rhetoric of former President Donald Trump, perhaps they remember his famous line. When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Sorry, baby. You're not a star.

Now, first of all, I hate to have to remind you about this, Clayton, and I know that it's traumatic for you, but he's not just your former president, he's also your future president. Now, second, this finally brings us to the crux of the matter, doesn't it? You spend the whole article claiming that I'm a hypocrite for thinking that my successful film ought to be treated like any other successful film and taken into consideration at awards time,

But your closing argument is that according to you, I'm not a, quote, star. Once again, what does that have to do with your thesis? The answer is nothing at all. It's just that it's like you have 10 paragraphs to get to your real point. And your real point is that you want to be able to determine who the stars are. We aren't supposed to be able to do what we did.

We aren't supposed to create a hit mainstream film from far outside of Hollywood without even so much as one mainstream film critic giving us a positive review or any review or even acknowledging our existence. Now me, I've been to Hollywood I think once in my life as a tourist.

And I hated it. It was pretty gross. I live with my wife and six kids out in the woods in Tennessee. I'm a podcaster. I never went to film school. I have no friends in the film industry. I don't know anyone. I have no contacts, no connections. I'm about as much of a Hollywood outsider as a person can possibly be.

And yet I start in a film that is not only the top movie in its genre this decade, and not only one of the top 35 in its genre ever made, but is still attracting a huge audience on the Daily Wire platform. None of that is supposed to happen, but it did, Clayton. I know it makes you sad, but it did happen. And I'll tell you something else, it will happen again. See, the business is changing. Everything's changing.

You're clinging on to the past, terrified that people like us will make people like you totally irrelevant, and we will. That's just the way it is. Time to accept it. Maybe you should try keeping up with the changing times, Clayton. In the words of a woman who will never be president, let us become unburdened by what has been. And sorry, buddy, you're a has been.

Also, you are today, canceled. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.