← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1721 - Democrats Are Doubling Down On Their Anti-White Agenda. Here's The Proof.
01:14:44
Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:01]
Matt Walsh
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify.
- [00:06]
Guest/Interviewer
They have the tools you need to.
- [00:07]
Matt Walsh
Start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com SpecialOffer today on the Matt Walsh show, the Democrat Party is doubling down on its anti white agenda. If you look at the new Democrat administrations in New York City and Virginia, that is very clear. Also, Hollywood actress claims that she personally witnessed lynchings when she was growing up. That would make sense maybe if she was say 120 years old or so, which she isn't and is AI about to completely take over the film industry. Ben Affleck weighs in on that question on Joe Rogan. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wal. If you need a preview of what the country will look like if Democrats ever take back control of the federal government, let's review the events that have taken place in Virginia over the past few days. A state now led by a CIA officer and sociopath named Abigail Spanberger. Since taking complete control of the state, Democrats have raced to eliminate penalties for a series of crimes from illegal migration to robbery to DUI for the benefit of the non white population that commits most of those crimes. In fact, DUIs will no longer carry mandatory prison time in the state and Spamberger has issued an executive order ending police cooperation with ice. So it's a real win win for Virginia's illegal alien community who as we know are big fans of drinking, driving under the influence. Democrats have also moved to formalize anti white discrimination in government contracting. They're planning to raise taxes on basically everything including sports facilities, dry cleaning, landscaping, home repairs, digital services. They're adding a new 20 cent tax to every single Amazon delivery and installing surveillance cameras across the state to generate more reven by fining motorists. They're also dramatically raising income taxes on wealthy individuals who are mostly white in order to fund free education for illegal aliens. They've commenced a new home based childcare provider startup grant program so that more taxpayer money can be funneled to their own, you know, Somali leering centers. They took one look at Minneapolis and decided hey, we want that in our state. Basically. To sum it up, that's what they're doing. Here's a Quote from just one of the bills that Virginia Democrats have introduced. To give you an idea, quote the small swam business Procurement Enhancement Program. The program is hereby established to facilitate the participation of small swam businesses in state procurement. The goal of the program shall be the achievement of a 42% small swam business utilization rate. And the bill continues. Quote, the program shall include a small swam business set aside for the purchase of goods, services and construction by executive branch agencies and covered institutions. Purchases up to $100,000 shall be set aside for award to small swam businesses. Now you might be wondering what is a swam swan and what's a small swam? Well, if you go back and look at the definitions, here's what the bill will tell you. Quote, small swam business means a small business certified by the department as being small. Any subcategory of small, small women owned, small minority owned or small service disabled veteran owned. Meanwhile, quote, swam means a small women owned or minority owned or related to a small women owned or minority owned business. So this is one of those cases where they've clearly messed up the acronym. They're talking about small swam businesses. They're saying small, small minority owned businesses. That's what a small swam is, a small, small minority on business. Not merely small minority owned business, it's a small, small business that is owned by minorities, whatever all that means. No one ever accused Marxists of being intelligent, but the intent of the bill is clear. The state of Virginia wants more taxpayer money that will flow to minorities and not because those minorities are the best candidates, but simply because they are not white. If you're a white guy who runs a large business, then you're going to be shut out of contracts under $100,000. A minority owned business will take that contract from you, unless of course, you want to hire them as a subcontractor. So if you pay the racial equity fee, then you can get the job. These are policies that, as contractors already know, are the norm in many cases already standard in federal contracting, thanks to the civil rights era. And now Virginia wants to drastically expand this kind of discrimination. Now, it's obviously bad policy that's eventually going to lead to some very obvious potentially catastrophic outcomes and already has across the country. And therefore, just to just to make sure that they never lose power again. Virginia Democrats have also introduced legislation that would make it illegal to count machine readable ballots by hand, as well as legislation that makes it much easier to obtain and submit absentee ballots without identifying yourself, along with legislation that allows people who are incapacitated to the point that they need a conservatorship to cast ballots. In other words, they're enabling voter fraud on a massive scale. And there, there are dozens more bills like this. The Account NOVA campaigns has cataloged many of them. Now, if you live in Virginia, or if you did live in Virginia as recently as 2018 or so, all of this way back then would have seemed hard to imagine. Democrats in the state were considered to be relatively moderate. All things considered, they certainly weren't anywhere near as far left as, say, California. But that changed when every moderate in the in the Virginia state House was primaried in 2019 and in the state Senate a few years later. The party is now under the complete control of California Marxists. And now that they've assumed power, they're not wasting any time transforming the entire state to fit their deranged vision. Now, the other day we spent most of the show discussing how leftists continue to destroy the American entertainment industry with terrible writing and communist messaging, pushing D DEI and all that. But at the same time, you know, no one takes those shows seriously anymore. They become parodies of themselves. Look all over the Internet, you're not going to find, or it will be a challenge to find a single serious video or post praising the new Star Trek show that we talked about. For example, all the comments on the show's YouTube premiere are negative and very few people watched it, although they did premiere it on YouTube and leave the comments on, which is a bold move. And that's just one of many, many indicators that wokeness to a large degree has peaked. Axios just asked two dozen prominent Democrats whether men can become women. And like we talked about, virtually all of them duck the question. The party is trying to move away from some of the fringe, deranged messaging that cost them the last election. But in turn, they're replacing that kind of wokeness with something much more deeply rooted and more insidious and potentially much more harmful. And the state of Virginia is exhibit A for what they're planning because Democrats have decided to go all in on anti white hatred, which every institution in this country has, has deliberately fostered for at least 60 years now. So it's not going away anytime soon. As the left kind of tries to awkwardly move away from transgenderism, some of the other excesses of the LGBT movement, they are doubling and tripling down on the racial narrative. And we're seeing that in the streets of Minneapolis right now as they're, you know, harassing random white people who just commit the crime of walking down the street or driving and that racial narrative has, has proven far more enduring and far more effective. And we know this is a much broader party wide strategy based on how top Democrats are talking right now. Michelle Obama, for instance, just stated that buying clothes from white designers and white owned companies is wrong. You need to start practicing wardrobe equity when you're buying your clothing. And this is a clip. This is not a clip from 2020. This is not from the Summer of Floyd. This is just this week. Watch.
- [09:19]
Guest/Interviewer
If I hear of someone whose fashion that I like and I know that they're a person of color, I try to make it a point, but the clothes have to be available. You know, I think we can all do some work to think about that balance in our wardrobes. You know, what does our closet look like and who's in it? Who are we supporting in it?
- [09:42]
Matt Walsh
Right.
- [09:42]
Guest/Interviewer
You know, and I think if you have the money to buy Chanel, then you have the money to buy everybody.
- [09:48]
Matt Walsh
Right.
- [09:49]
Guest/Interviewer
And so let us be mindful, I think would be my advice. Yeah.
- [09:57]
Matt Walsh
So the women all nod as if it's a completely normal thing to say, which for these people it is. You're not allowed to avoid black owned businesses. If you're an Uber driver and you try to avoid high crime areas because you don't want to get carjacked and shot, your account will be suspended for racism. But if any other race wants to openly discriminate against whites, the Democrat party will support them wholeheartedly. So before you convince yourself that wokeness has gone away, well, consider the fact that, you know, it's, it's still perfectly acceptable and encouraged to talk about how you want to prioritize patronizing black owned businesses. And yet even in our age, which is supposedly post woke or whatever, if somebody gets up and says, you know what, I really want to support white owned businesses, that's really important to me because I'm white. I want to support my people, nothing against anybody else. But you know, before I buy clothing or go to a restaurant, I just want to make sure that it's owned by a white person. Now, we all know the reaction to that kind of comment. We know how that will go. And it's true, of course, the Democrats have been talking like this for a very long time. But unlike traditional wokeness, they're doubling down on, on this kind of rhetoric. Everywhere they seize power, they're implementing an anti white platform. That's why Zoran Mamdani just appointed Afua Atta Mensah to be the Chief Equity officer of New York. Just a Nice, nice traditional American name there. Afua Ata Mensah. Bet you there are a bunch of those fighting in the Revolutionary War. The New York, New York Young Republicans Club has found several posts in which this woman openly attacks white people. Which of course is the entire reason that Mamdani hired her. In this post, for example, somebody posted his thoughts on the television show Succession and Mamdani's new equity director responded by saying, quote, tax them to the white meat. Yes, tax them to the white meat. This woman also frequently talks about her comrades and how they're going to dismantle white supremacy and so on. She also reposted and endorsed the message stating quote, there's no moderate way to black liberation. And guess what? None of this is scandalous in the Mamdani administration because they all think this way. That's why his platform called for raising taxes on richer and whiter neighborhoods. And as Sia Weaver, Mamdani's director of tenants, put it, they're going to impoverish the white middle class, the white middle class specifically. They're going to declare that homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy. And Mamdani himself has confirmed all of this. If there was any confusion, watch and realize.
- [12:50]
Guest/Interviewer
There's a policy proposal that says your plan, and I'm going to quote it for folks, is to shift the tax burden for from overtaxed homeowners in the.
- [12:57]
Matt Walsh
Outer boroughs to more expensive homes in.
- [13:00]
Guest/Interviewer
Richer and whiter neighborhoods.
- [13:03]
Matt Walsh
Explain why you are bringing race into your tax proposal. That is just a description of what we see right now.
- [13:10]
Ben Affleck
It's not driven by race.
- [13:11]
Matt Walsh
It's more of an assessment of what neighborhoods are being undertaxed versus overtaxed.
- [13:15]
Guest/Interviewer
So no plans to change that language on your website.
- [13:18]
Matt Walsh
The focus here is to actually ensure a few fair property tax system and that the use of that language is just an assessment of the neighborhood. So it's reminiscent of the defenses we saw concerning those South African kill the boar chants. Remember how the New York Times ran cover for that? What exactly did you mean when you said kill the white farmer? Well, it's just a common expression, just a, a figure of speech doesn't really mean anything actually when you come out and say that you're going to raise taxes on whites to their, to their white meat. Everyone understands exactly what you're doing. The left has committed to full on racial warfare and they're going to win using this strategy unless the Republican Party stops playing the same game in reverse. You know, a big, a big part of the reason why Republicans lost the governor's race in Virginia that has set up all this stuff to happen in Virginia is that they selected an anti Trump candidate from Jamaica and patted themselves on the back for their commitment to diversity. And she spent most of the campaign talking about being an immigrant who won in a black district district and you know, and how she can win more of the black vote. Watch.
- [14:37]
Guest/Interviewer
Let me tell you about me. My name is Winsome Sears and I served in the United States Marine Corps. I was the first Republican to win a seat in the House of Delegates in a majority Black district since 1865. In the General Assembly, I had 100% pro life and pro Second Amendment record. I became the national chairman of black Americans to reelect President Trump. And we turned out more black voters for any Republican president since Reagan. Now our country's falling into chaos, but I still still believe in the America that has accepted me as an immigrant and gave us a shot at the American dream.
- [15:16]
Matt Walsh
So that was four mentions. That was about a 30 second or a minute ad. And that was four mentions of black or immigrant or maybe five. I lost count. Four or five mentions of black or immigrant in, you know, whatever. 45 second ad. And so this is still. And they, and they lost. What a shocker. Now we're seeing this kind of thing replicated by Republicans across the country in other elections. And the, the, the results will be the same because this is still the Republicans bright idea. This is still there. Oh, I know. So if we find our own minorities to run and we run them regardless of whether or not they're the best fit, and then they, and then they spend the whole campaign talking about how the, how their minorities then will win the minority vote. It's never worked that way. That strategy has never worked. If Republicans insist on running political campaigns on the left's terms. The left's terms like, which is, which is adopting the premise that somehow being black or being an immigrant is a qualification for office. That's. Those are the left's terms. And as long as Republicans adopt those terms, they'll lose every time. And the reason this is a losing strategy is that the left doesn't actually care about the demographics of their candidate. Or at least that's not their primary concern or even close to it. Instead, the left is principally concerned with selecting candidates who will ruthlessly and efficiently disenfranchise and, and bankrupt and incarcerate and ultimately destroy white conservative men. That's why they elected Joe Biden, who allowed FBI SWAT teams to arrest, in some cases kill conservatives who offended the left on the Internet. That's why they rallied around Abigail Spanberger, an extraordinarily dull and uncharismatic white woman. She promised to rig all the government contracts against white men, to let the illegal aliens out of prison, to take jobs from white men, to make it easier to rob white men, and so on. And now she's delivering on those promises along with every Democrat in Virginia. Left unchecked, this anti white fervor will lead to cases like this one out of Ontario, Canada. A 19 year old woman who left her 14 month old toddler unattended in a full bathtub resulting in the child's death just received a mere three year prison sentence. And that's because according to the judge, there was systemic racism identified in the community that explains the woman's conduct in this case. Yes, systemic racism, I. E. White people, evil white people. Explains why the woman left her toddler alone in a full bathtub for 5 to 10 minutes without any kind of chair or support whatsoever, even though he couldn't walk, and even though she had been warned by the government on two occasions to never leave her child unattended. So race in effect now excuses murder in Canada. The logic used in this case of course justifies reduced sentences for any homicide, including acts of violence committed by black criminals against whites which are extremely common. In fact, 84% of interracial crimes involving black and white people are black on white crimes. In places like Canada and Virginia and New York and Minneapolis and every other jurisdiction controlled by leftists. Those anti white crimes will soon be excused if they aren't being excused already. We can't allow this to continue. But Democrats will continue racking up wins like this unless we start fielding candidates that will recognize what the left is doing and call it out openly. And pledged to defend white men from the onslaught of racial discrimination that they will face if and when Democrats regain power. You know, Republicans that are not afraid to say, to explicitly say that these people hate white men and want to punish them for their, for the, for the sin, for their perceived sins. And we're going to stop that from happening. We need Republicans who are willing to just say that out loud. You know, we've mostly defeated the trans agenda which would have been, you know, would have had civilization ending consequences if we had failed. And now we have to confront the left's anti white agenda, which as the rise of Democrats across the country demonstrates, will be a much harder campaign to vanquish. Now let's get to our five headlines. Skip the life overhaul in 2026, just swap your snacks for ones with real ingredients, like our sponsor, Massive. It's clean eating without the massive diet. Massa's chips are refreshingly simple. Organic corn, sea salt, and 100% grass fed beef tallow. That's the whole ingredient list. No ingredients that you'd need a chemistry degree to pronounce. Master chips are genuinely delicious. Like you're not making some noble sacrifice for your health here. And my favorite flavor is their original. Of course, I like to keep it simple. I think the chips are great. We always have a bag at home. Plus they're sturdy too, so you know, you can actually dip them and they won't fall apart in the dip. Masa chips actually leave you feeling good. No crash, no bloat, none of that heavy, why did I do this to myself? Regret. Plus, you'll actually feel full instead of instantly craving another bag five minutes later. Ready to give Massa a try? Go to Massachips.com Walsh and use code WALSH for 25% off your first order. Or simply click the link in the video description or scan the QR code to claim this delicious offer. Don't feel like ordering online? Massa is now available nationwide at your local Sprouts supermarket. Stop by, pick up a couple of bags before they're gone. We'll start with this. Pam Greer. Jussie Greer, as she's known now. Pam. Pam Smollett. She. She has many names. She's used to be an actress. She appeared on the View, and I don't know what she's up to these days, aside from apparently eating a lot of cheesecake from the looks of it, which is fine. She's in her 70s. I've already said I fully support people over 65 getting fat, which is what I plan to do. But, you know, so that's not the problem here. The problem is this story that she told from her childhood that seems a little bit dubious. Let's say, listen, you faced a lot.
- [22:01]
Guest/Interviewer
Of racism growing up in Columbus, Ohio. How did that shape you?
- [22:07]
Matt Walsh
Whew.
- [22:08]
Guest/Interviewer
Well, the military wouldn't allow black families to live on the base, so you had to live in an apartment. And you couldn't take a bus, you couldn't afford a car. You walked. Your dads walked to the base. And sometimes we would go from tree shade to shade to get back to the apartment, my brother and I, my mom with bags. And my mom would go, don't look, don't look, don't look. And she'd pull us away because there was someone hanging from a tree. And they have a memorial for it now where you can see where people were and left. And it triggers me today to see that a voice can be silenced. And if a white family supported a black, they're gonna get burned down or killed or lynched as well. Yeah.
- [23:03]
Matt Walsh
Now, I don't know why she's dressed like Carmen Sandiego. That's one question. More importantly, she makes a claim here that is just not true. Of course, this incredibly dumb audience, they hear her say this and they say, oh, my gosh, you hear the gasp in the crowd, you know, which she might as well have said. I remember being a child and growing wings and flying through the air. And the audience goes, you did. Whoa. No, it's. That is just as credible as believing that story she just told. The last lynching in Columbus, Ohio, was never. Actually, there was. There's never been a recorded lynching in Columbus, Ohio, ever. The last lynching in the state of Ohio in the entire state was like 19. I mean, there's some people online say it was 1911, although I think in that case, the police intervened and the person was. Was not killed. The last person to actually be lynched and left to die, like hanging from a tree. What, in Ohio? The entire state. Not in Columbus, where this, as far as we know, never happened. But the last time in Ohio that happened was the 1890s. And if you look up how many lynchings occurred in the entire state in its history, ever, you'll get varying numbers, but at most, the highest estimate that I could find was like 28. Nobody estimates more than 30, so let's go with that. I mean, it's probably more like 23 or 24, but let's just say 30 rounding up. There were 30 lynchings in the entire history of the state of Ohio ever, from when it was founded in 1803 to today. And the last fatal lynching, we'll say, was in the 1890s. So really, there were 30 lynchings, all of them in the 19th century over the span of a hundred years. And if you count the one in 1911, then that's 30 over 110 years, or 11 decades, which averages out to about three a decade in the whole state for 110 years. And over the 120 years, ish. From since 1911, there have been zero lynchings. But Pam Grier's lies even worse because she's not claiming, right. That she witnessed one lynching. That would be bad enough. She tells the story as though this was a common occurrence, because you notice how she phrases it. She says we'd be walking along and my mom would tell us to look away because there were bodies hanging in the tree. That's not what you say when you're referring to one specific incident which also didn't happen. She's claiming this is a regular thing. I think she said sometimes. Right, Sometimes. Sometimes we'd be walking home and there's just bodies hanging in all the trees, like, like tree ornaments in the 1960s in Ohio. They're just, just black people hanging from trees all over the place. That's what she's claiming. This, this is an egregious, verifiable lie by a famous, well, relatively famous, used to be famous person on network tv. And she lies like this because she knows that she has cover. She knows that nobody in the mainstream media will call her out. And yet it's still remarkable. I mean, why do this? Why humiliate yourself this way? What do you gain from this? Well, you know, it's for a leftist, of course, the desire to be a victim, the desire to be pitied. That's the desire. It's the desire to be pitied is what animates them. It's what drives them. Now, sure, they, they use the victim status to gain power, to gain prestige. In their circles, it's all a power game. We know that. But they do also, on an emotional level, when you talk about, well, what's their emotional. What, what do they, what do they get out of this emotionally? What's the emotional incentive? And the answer is they deeply desire to be pitied, which is the sickest, weirdest, most pathetic thing for a person to want. Right? Pity should be the last thing you want. Even if you're in a position and something has happened to you that is deserving of pity, you still shouldn't want it. That's how any normal person is. A normal person says, I don't want your pity, I don't want that. And yet you have these leftists that are, that are going out of their way to come up with reasons to be pitied. But we should keep in mind, you know, claiming that there were black people getting lynched all over the place in Ohio in the 1960s is crazy. It's not as crazy as saying, on the other hand, that people are being lynched today, which is what leftists will say. So a lot of people have been talking about this, saying, well, this is, that's nuts. That didn't happen in Ohio in the 1960s. That is nuts. But these people will say that this is happening today. That there are people today who could have this same experience of walking down the street and seeing black people hanging from trees. Here's, for example, here's Jasmine Crockett on this. On this point.
- [29:13]
Guest/Interviewer
They not even going. Honestly, they're about to outlaw the idea of white supremacy and white hate. Like, they are about to be like, oh, that's not a thing. Forget the fact that you're talking about getting rid of, like, the classification for nooses in a time in which we have seen these random black bodies be strung up down south also seemingly at a time in which you're back in office. Because what you do is you embolden the hate. You embolden everybody to take off their hoods. That is what he has done.
- [29:51]
Matt Walsh
They not even gone. They not even gone. They not even gonna be talking about no white supremacy, child. These publicans, they. They ain't even gonna talk about. So, Congresswoman, by the way, so she says random black bodies are getting lynched, which is. I mean, look, we're so used to it at this point. But think about what you're claiming. This is a member of Congress just making it up. Totally made up, Random. But really, Jasmine, where is that happening? Why have we not seen that? You're telling me everything ends up on social media these days, okay? If somebody has an unpleasant interaction with the cashier at McDonald's, we're going to see it on Twitter. But we don't see that there are places where there are black bodies hanging from trees because they were lynched. And there are no images of that on social media whatsoever anywhere. Fascinating. Now, the last lynching in this country was more than 40 years ago. There has not been a single case in my entire life, and I'm old as hell. And that one case was the only one for the several decades preceding it. And by the way, here's one other point I want to make, since we're on the subject of lynching. Clearly, anyone claiming that it happens today is insane or lying or both. And same goes for anyone claiming that it happened in Ohio in the 1960s. But there is another point, which is that when we hear about lynching in American history, back in a time and in a place where it did happen, historically, it did happen. But I think it's worth pointing out, because this is one of those things that's used to. To prop up the narrative of white guilt, it's worth pointing out that even at the. In the, I guess we would say, heyday of lynching, it was not common. And it was also not always racially motivated. In fact, it often wasn't. And this is what the left does with history. You know, either they fabricate stuff that never happened, or they take some. Some event. They take some data set. They take something that does reflect a thing that actually happened, but they frame it in a misleading way. And then they play this gaslighting game where you're not allowed to correct them, because if you do right, they can just say whatever they want about lynching. And if you, especially as a white person, come along and say, well, that's not actually what happened, then they'll go, what. What are you justifying? Lynching? Why is it even. Why do you have to say anything? What are you justifying it? This is what they do with slavery, which we talk about in real history, which is available now in Daily Wire. So with lynching, you know, even though we're not. We're not supposed to correct it, but it's like, yeah, black people were lynched and all the time, and it was a terrible thing, was always racist. It was never justified. It was like, just, just go with it. Just go. Don't say it. Just go with it. That's the attitude. But in re I, because I got to be the guy always to just point out, I got to be that guy. That in fact, with lynching, something like a thousand or more of the lynching victims, from like the 1860s to the 1930s or so, which is during the time when this sort of thing was happening, about a thousand of the victims were white. It's a large percentage. It's probably about 25 to 30%, not a small percentage white people got lynched, too. And what does that tell you? Well, it tells you that this is that. That lynching is not synonymous with racial terrorism. Sometimes it was. That did happen. But what lynching really means historically in this country is an extrajudicial killing by hanging. You know, in the most technical sense. And for a portion of US History, especially out on the frontier, out in the old west, this kind of killing was relatively common because they didn't have a court system, and they didn't have. Or they didn't have much of one. They didn't have. They didn't have a sophisticated court system or law enforcement that could handle some of this stuff. And so you ended up with kind of this mob justice so you could get lynched. If the townsfolk thought that you were a murderer or a rapist or a horse thief, that was a big one. And, and. And so that when we Talk about the total number of people where this happened. It's like, well, that a significant portion of that had nothing to do with race and some of them weren't even black. There were racially motivated lynchings that did happen too. But like if you look at the estimates which, which obviously are not exact, but most people estimate that something like 4 to 5,000 people were lynched in America. Total, total in the entire history of the country. Not a large number. Well, about 1300 of those victims were white. That leaves like three to 4000 on the entire history of the country who were black, who were lynched. And well, if white people were lynched for non racial reasons, obviously then it stands to reason that there were also cases where that happened to black people because they in fact committed a crime or they were, or they at least were accused of it, just like the white people who were lynched. So now you take out the people who are lynched not for racial reasons, but as a form of justice for serious crimes in times and places where they didn't have a sophisticated legal system. And, and then, and so, so now you're narrowing it down, narrowing it down. And now you have the percentage, whatever that percentage is, I don't know where, okay, now those are the people who are actually victims of racially motivated terrorism. But it's not, it's not all 5,000. Not even really close to all 5,000. Even if it was, that's still a small number over the entire history of the country. But you know, that doesn't tell the whole story. And I realize, and look, I realize that everything I'm saying right now, this is going to get clipped. It's going to end up Media Matters or whatever. It's going to end up on, on X and People was, is justified. He's saying, he's justifying it because this is the game they play. They just say things about history that are, are not true or are out of context or it's like there's more to the story that needs to be said and you're not allowed to correct it because if you correct it, just that's their attitude. And they'll almost tell you this because if you start correcting them on something like this, they'll say, yeah, whatever. What? Okay, fine, whatever. But we don't need to talk about that. Just let us do this. That's their answer to their historical lies. Just let us do this. Okay, we came up with this narrative and this is the thing, this is what we're saying. It's very simplistic it's not totally true, but just let us do this because it makes us feel good and when you start questioning it a little bit, it makes us feel bad. So shut up. That's their argument. Getting a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my diet is key for me this year and our sponsor, Balance of Nature's Whole Health System, makes it simple. With their convenient blends of fruits and vegetables and easy to take capsules, I can ensure I'm getting essential nutrients every day without the hassle of prep work or meal planning. It's an effortless way to support wellness while maintaining a busy lifestyle. Balance of Nature's Whole Health System supplements are incredibly versatile and easy to work into your daily routine. The fiber and spice supplement blends smoothly into your favorite drinks and if you prefer, you can even open up the fruits and veggies capsules and mix the powder directly into a smoothie or sprinkle it over your meals. What makes these supplements special is that they're packed with 47 ingredients from 100 Real Whole Fruits, vegetable, spices and fibers. Everything from flaxseeds, cinnamon, mango to pineapple and spinach to kale. Simple way to give your body the nutrition it needs every day. I personally love it because of its convenience when I'm traveling for work or trying to keep up with the kids gives me a simple way to make sure I'm getting all the essential nutrients in my diet this new year. Lock in 50 off for one year. When you subscribe to the Whole Health System supplement as a preferred customer, go to balanceofnature.com all right, let's take a look at. At this. Here's a quick thing. Well, well, not really a quick issue, but I'll touch on it quickly. CBS News President Trump had set January 20 as a deadline for credit card companies to lower their interest rates to 10% for one year. And now that the date has arrived, most banks and card issue issuers have largely kept their rates unchanged while also pushing back against an idea that they say lacks key policy details necessary for them to comply. Mr. Trump announced the cap on January 9, giving banks issue and issuers just 11 days to meet his demand of getting the the rates down to 10%. And but so far so the deadline has has arrived and a lot of these nobody has complied with it. Nothing has happened to them so far. So I think this is an interesting thing and I support the idea if it's ever actually implemented because a lot of these credit cards, 20%, 30% interest rates and those are insane. That's immoral usury is a sin and bringing those down is a good idea, but it doesn't really get to the heart of the problem, which is that Americans are increasingly basically living their whole lives on credit. This is something that Charlie Kirk talked about with Tucker and I saw a clip floating around again after it was posted originally by. I'm not sure who Captive Dreamer, I think posted originally, but. So Charlie was talking about what we've discussed here, which is the scourge of bnpl, which is buy now, pay later. And this is a system that's technically not credit, so it's not regulated the same way, but it allows you to defer payment for something or to break up payments into increments. And this is not a new invention. What is new is that now you can do this with everything, right? You can, you can do it with any retail product. You can do it with electronics, furniture, appliances. All of that has been the case for a while, but now also groceries, fast food, pizza, Ubereats, Instacart. So increasingly we now live in a country where not only is everyone crushed by debt all the time, but also nobody owns ever anything. And that is, that to me is the core of the issue. I mean, there are, there are people, adults in this country who don't own anything, like anything at all. So now we could be in a spot where you might not even own the burrito you're eating because it's on a payment plan. Even that has to be paid off. So just imagine this scenario. And, and there's plenty of people who don't have to imagine it because they live it. But a person, a young person in particular, sits down in his house at his table to eat his Chipotle dinner. Well, the house is rented or, or it's on a 50 year mortgage, which is, you know, something Trump wants to do. The table and chair still being paid off and so is the burrito bowl that he's eating. He doesn't even own the fork that he's eating it with. So there's this, you know, a common scenario where you would look at that, you think, well, okay, he owns all that stuff. This is a guy who at least owns a table, a chair, a burrito bowl and a house. Well, increasingly, no, you don't own any of it. All of it's either on credit or it's on a, it's on a payment plan. And that's the problem. The problem here isn't, isn't just the debt, although that's a big part of it. The problem is a generation that doesn't own anything and therefore has no stake in the country. Every January, people set big goals about eating better, being healthier. And then reality hits. Work gets busy, life gets chaotic and suddenly everyone's back to the same tired routine of wondering what's for dinner. That's where our sponsor Cook Unity comes in. They bring restaurant level flavors straight to your door with chef designed dishes that balance nourishment, creativity and everyday luxury. Choose from collections like Mood Boosting, Better for Sleep and Protein Forward. Whatever goals you're chasing this year, no cooking, no shopping, no meal planning. Everything arrives fully cooked. All you need to do is heat it up in as little as 5 minutes. Choose from over 300 rotating seasonal meals with chefs like Marcus Samuelson and Michelin star Rick Bayless. I can be picky about good food and Cook Unity actually gets it right. I ordered the Renwein braised short rib with Mac and cheese and was ridiculously good. The chefs clearly know what they're doing and the variety means that I'm not eating the same boring thing every week. It's a service that doesn't make convenient taste like cardboard. Plus, CookUnity offers flexibility when you need it. Skip, pause or cancel anytime. Taste, comfort and craftsmanship in every bite. From the award winning chefs behind Cook unity, go to cookunity.comwalsh or enter code walsh before checkout to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off first order by using code walsh or going to cookunity.comwalsh all right, the Independent has this report. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has signaled a possible break with President Donald Trump over the passage of the Safeguard American Voters Eligibility act, the SAVE act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote. The President has complained since his defeat in 2020 about voter fraud. Texas Republican Representative Chip Roy introduced the SAVE act last January proposing to amend the National Registration act and block non citizens from voting and it passed the House of Representatives by 220 to 2208. Sends the bill to the Senate. If passed, the bill would and this is now I'm just reading the Independent. This is how they describe it. If passed, the bill could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who lack easy access to identification documents and would upend how state states register people to vote online or through automatic or same day registration. In a letter to a constituent post on social media by MAGA activist Scott Pressler, Grassley, the Senate's 92 year old president, pro temporary, has expressed sympathy for his correspondent, stated concerns about election security, but then added that he I've opposed partisan efforts in Washington, D.C. to federalize elections in order to undermine election integrity. I do not believe that Iowa and other states need politicians in Washington dictating and controlling how states run their elections. All right, now, obviously this bill should pass. We need voter id. I don't think I need to go through all the arguments or point out how ID is already required for many of the other things that normal adults do on a day to day basis, like driving or opening up a credit card or a bank account or anything. You cannot be a functional adult in America and not have id. We all know that, or at least the reasonable people among us already know that. And the article tells us that the act would disenfranchise millions of Americans who lack easy access to id. Well, the second part of that is false. Every American has easy access to id. No matter where you live, no matter where you live in modern America, you have easy access to id. Unless you live out deep in the Alaskan wilderness. Okay? Unless you're, unless you're doing an into the wild thing where you're living in an old bus, off the grid in the wilderness, hunting moose until you eat the wrong kind of berry and die. Unless that's your situation, you have easy access to id. And this claim is especially absurd because as we all know, it's not talking about people living in the wilderness in Alaska because those people will tend to be white. No, this is referring specifically to black people. And most of them live in urban environments where not only is there going to be a DMV a few blocks away, but there's public transportation to get you there. So we all know that. Will voter ID disenfranchise millions of Americans? I hope so. Hopefully it will. You know, when I read something like that, well, this will disenfranchise millions of music to my ears. God, I hope so. And that's just me, okay? All the voters who are so dumb and so helpless and so incompetent that they don't have IDs and can't figure out how to obtain one, I am very glad to disenfranchise all of them. So when someone's counterargument is, yeah, look at all these helpless morons who, who don't know how to participate in society as adults. What about them? This will disenfranchise them. I hear that and I say good, yes, that's exactly the point. At least to me. I mean, yes, it's. We want to safeguard election Integrity, we don't want voter fraud. But also if it, if this has the effect of excluding the dumbest and most incompetent people in the, from being able to vote, I see that as a major bonus. Like they should already be disenfranchised just based on their incompetence and lack of intelligence to begin with. So if this is the way that we achieve that I think very worthwhile goal, then it works for me. Works for me. Even if you could convince me, even if you could argue that, well, this isn't going to do anything to help prevent voter fraud, which I don't, I don't think that's true, just to be clear, I think it will help prevent voter fraud. But even if you could make the argument that it won't help with that, I would still support it because it will weed out the dumbest and most incompetent people in the country who should not be voting and should not have any say the direction of this country. But putting all that to the side, I, I just want to think about this part where it says again in a letter to a constituent post on social media, Grassley, the Senate's 92 year old. That's it. I just want to focus. 92, 92 years old. Why in God's name are we allowing 92 year olds to serve in any position in government, let alone in the Senate? I mean, I've been calling for age limits in Congress and in the White House for years now. Can we at least agree on 90 as a cutoff? Can we do that? Can we start incrementally? Like, can we at least say that when you're 10 years away from being a century old, it's time to retire now. I want to make the age limit for Congress and the presidency. 70, 75. That's what I would like to do. But if we can't agree on that, I'll take anything I can get, okay? I'll take anything I can get on this. So can we let, let's start, let's start really easy. How about 90? Can we make the cut off 90 just to start. But there are people who would oppose that too. I could say, can we set the age limit at 150? I mean, can we, can we at least. There are people that say, well, why should we? What if a mummy wants to be, be in Senate? In the Senate, should we exclude all the mummies? That's ageist. Okay? When you're, when you're, when you're so old that you're pope Old when you're too old? Yeah. Like, when you're so old that you would be old for a pope, then you're too old to be a politician. You know, I think we should be able to say that that's because that's how. I don't know if I'm the only one who does this, but this is kind of how I look at aging, where I look at it based on professions. So for me, I probably am alone in this. I'm obviously mentally ill. But I. So I recently. I recently became NFL quarterback old. That was a big moment in my life where if I now, at the age of 39, if I was in the NFL, I would be ancient. I would be like a wily old veteran. I'd be. I'm grandfather age for the NFL. However, if I ran for Congress, then I'm. I'm an energetic, spry, rambunctious youngster at the age of 39. So I'm NFL old, but I'm Congress young. And then you could kind of do that. And then when you get into your 60s, well, you're old in a lot of contexts, but now you're president young in your 60s, and you run for president, you're like the young upstart. And then once you get into your 70s, you're old in all areas of life. Unless you become Pope. If you become pope at 70, people will look at you and say, wow, it's nice to have a young pope. It's nice to have a young pope. This is. This is. This is great. Pope Leo is 70, and people were said that about him. So my only point is that we have people in Congress right now that would be old for a pope. They're old in all contexts. They would be old for a nursing home. There are people in Congress right now that are so old that if you saw them in a nursing home, they would stand out for how old they are. If you went to a nursing home to visit your grandmother and you saw Chuck Grassley, you would go, wow, that guy's old. You'd look around at all the people in nursing home, and you. And he would stand out. You go, like, that guy's really old. That's. That's an old guy in this nursing home, and he's in the Senate. Well, I. There's no reason to it. Like, there's no good argument for allowing this. No one has ever made it. No one's ever been able to explain why it's important that we allow people who are decrepit, like, at a. At a. At a decrepit and senile stage in the aging process. Why. Why? It should still be okay for them to, you know, be representing us in public office. No one's ever been able to explain that. This episode is sponsored by Done with Debt. Drowning a credit card and loan debt. Well, you're not alone. But here's something most people don't know. Now is actually the best time to negotiate with your lenders. Credit card companies and lenders desperately need to clear problem accounts from their books before audits begin. This creates a narrow window where they're far more willing to cut deals than any other time of year. Done with Debt. Let's crack the code on this timing advantage. They know exactly which companies are most motivated to negotiate right now. They use this insider knowledge to get results you can't achieve on your own. Best part. No bankruptcy. No new. No new loans. No credit damage. In fact, most clients end up with more money in their pocket within the first month because they're no longer drowning in minimum payments. But this window won't stay open forever. Lenders will tighten up again and your leverage disappears. Get started now. You still have time. Go to donewithdat.com talk with one of their specialists for free. Visit donewithdat.com donewithdat.com Finally, I mentioned yesterday Ben Affleck and Matt Damon on Joe Rogan. I thought it was a good episode. I listened to the whole thing, which I rarely do with any podcast, and they were actually there to promote their new movie called the Rip, which I watched with my wife last weekend. And it was pretty good. It was like a solid little action flick. So good, good first act, a good second act. The movie suffers, though, in the same way that movies of this type often suffer, where the tension ratchets up, you know, through the first act and the second act and. And then it has to lead somewhere. And in an action movie, it almost always leads to, like, a big shootout or a car chase and. And that. That relieves the tension, sort of by definition, like the most tense part of a standoff, which means the most interesting part to watch is when people are not shooting. It's the threat of shooting that makes it really tense and interesting. The moment they start shooting, the tension releases and it becomes a little less absorbing and a little less interesting. And so anyway, it's pretty good, though. But during the conversation, Affleck started talking about AI in the film industry. You know, this is an issue that I care about, AI in general and in particular, AI in the Arts we talk about a lot in the show and so there's been some discussion about this clip online and Affleck's take on it. Let's listen.
- [56:02]
Ben Affleck
What I see is, for example, if you try to get ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini to write you something, it's really. And it's because by its nature it goes to the mean, to the average and it's. And it's not reliable and it's. I mean, I just came stand to see what writes now. It's a useful tool if you're a writer and you're going, what's the thing? I'm trying to set something up. Or somebody sends someone a letter but it's delayed two days and gets. And it can give you some examples of that. I actually don't think it's very likely that it can. It's going to be able to write anything meaningful or in particular that it's gonna be making movies like from Holcoth, like Tilly Norwood, like that's. I don't think that's gonna happen. I think it's not. I think it actually, it turns out the technology is not progressing in exactly the same way they sort of presented it. And really what it is, is gonna be a tool just like sort of visual facts and yeah, it needs to have language around it. You need to protect your name and likeness. You can do that, you can watermark it. Those laws already exist. I can't sell your picture for money. I can't. You can sue me, period. It kind of feels to me like thing we talked about earlier where there's a lot more fear because we have the sense this existential dread, it's going to wipe everything out. But that actually runs counter in my view, to what history seems to show, which is a adoption is slow, it's incremental. I think a lot of that rhetoric comes from people who are trying to justify valuations around companies where they go, we're going to change everything in two years, there's going to be no more work. Well, the reason they're saying that is because. Because they need to ascribe a valuation for investment that can warrant the capex spend they're going to make on these data centers with the argument that like, oh, you know, as soon as we do the next model, it's going to scale up and be three times as good. Except that actually chatgpt5 about 25 times percent better than chatgpt4 and costs about four times as much in the way of electricity and data. So they say that's like plateauing. The early AI, the line went up very steeply and it's now sort of leveling off.
- [58:06]
Matt Walsh
So I agree with most everything he says. There. There are two points I want to add. And so you know that I'm very, very opposed to the idea of AI art, quote, unquote, art. And I'm very opposed to AI in many other contexts. Not all, but in many other contexts, I think the chance that AI basically destroys human society is much higher than the chance that it proves to be any kind of net positive for humanity. I think both of those, both of those results are possible, but I think the result of it causing civilization level destruction, I think that that is much greater. But I'll add this first. I differ with Affleck on one thing. He says that in the context of art, writing, filmmaking, it can be a useful tool. But I don't think it's a tool at all. Artistically. It can be a tool in other ways, but in the creation of art, it is not a tool because. And a lot of people want. I was arguing about this again today on X. A lot of people want to believe that it's a tool because they use it and they might use it for some artistic things, for some creative things, and they want to believe that they are the artist using a tool. But that is not the case because a tool like AI does the task for you. It's not. Tools are objects that you use to accomplish a task that you are doing. AI just does the task. And this is easy to understand if you think in terms of actual tools. So if there was a hammer where you could press a button and it would just hammer all the nails for you, not even. Like, it makes it easier to hammer the nails. But you can sit on the couch and drink a beer and this thing will hover, you know, and, and, and around and just nail all the stuff for you. Well, in that case, it would be inaccurate to say that you use the tool to hammer the nails. You didn't do anything. You did not hammer the nails. The thing did all that. You didn't even have to be there. You could have left the room, you could have gone to lunch and come back and all the stuff will be nailed. It's very convenient. I can see the. I could see the, the appeal of something like that. But you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You can't use this thing to do the task for you and then also want to take credit for it and say, oh, yeah, That's a good. It's a good bit of construction that I just. You didn't do it. You did not do it. The thing. Did the whole thing. On the other hand, if you use like an actual hammer, a regular hammer, yes, that is you using this thing to accomplish the goal, but it. It could not happen without you. Right? And that's what AI does creatively, which is why I. I hate it so much in any kind of creative context. And even if you aren't asking AI to generate, say, a whole screenplay for you or make a whole movie or whatever, even if you're just asking it to help with some part of the writing process, whatever that part is, it's doing it for you. It is not a tool. Assisting. It's just doing is a cheat. It's a shortcut. And to whatever extent you use it in the creation of art is the exact, exact extent to which the final product is not fully art. So, you know, in the world of, of filmmaking, say, think about like, special effects, computer graphics, whatever. Well, without A.I. you know, you. You want to have Godzilla knock over the building in your movie? Well, it's all going to be cgi. I mean, back in the day, they used to use some practical effects for this, but they don't. That. Those days are long past. And so now it's going to obviously be cgi, but that requires humans. It requires actual human beings to use computers as a tool to compose those images. And it requires talent. And some humans are better at it than others, which is why some movies look terrible, have terrible CGI and terrible special effects. And other movies have much better because they have better talent behind it. It's an art form. Well, AI takes the building, takes the composing part out of it entirely. Now you just type in like, there's a big difference between using a computer to create, right? You are creating the image of Godzilla knocking the building over. That's one thing. It's an entirely different thing to type into a prompt, generate an image of Godzilla knocking over a building, and then just hit enter, okay? That's not an artist using a tool at best. In that case, you're not an artist, you are not an artist at best. You are a manager delegating a task. And now art is not art. It is management. It is delegation. And I. I cannot think of a worse fate for art than that. For art to become management, for art to become this, like, bureaucratic delegation of tasks, that is the worst fate imaginable. I would rather that art just disappear entirely. I'd Rather it be banned by some kind of fascist dictator. Government takes over the world and it bans you from ever making any more art. All music, everything is banned. I would prefer that over all, art just becomes managers who are dictating prompts to inhuman algorithms. It's like if I commission a painting, right, I am not the artist. If I tell a painter to paint me a picture of a, whatever, a lighthouse, and they paint the picture and it's beautiful and I hang it on my wall and somebody comes to my house and they see it hanging there in the living room above the fireplace and they say, wow, great painting. Who painted that? It would be a lie for me to say, well, I did. Oh, that's right. Thank you very much. That's my, actually I did that. That's my painting. I'm the artist, right? If they looked at the painting and said, oh, wow, that's amazing. Who's the artist? You would be a godforsaken liar if you said, well, it's me. Because you didn't paint it. You delegated the task to someone. You told them. Even if you kind of described, well, give me a lighthouse that on a, on a misty morning and the light is shining and the waves are crashing. That doesn't make you the artist. That's not art. That's just you saying what you want. The art is in the creating part of it. It's not in the thinking of what you want, just thinking of what you want. I mean, that's like saying if you can. I mean, we think of a thousand examples. If I go to a chef and say, here's, here's the meal that I'd really like. You know, I'm really, I'm really hankering for this now. I'm really, I really want a, a delicious, you know, steakhouse quality steak, medium rare. I want some asparagus on the side. I'd like to have some mashed potatoes. You know, I am not cooking the meal. The chef is doing all of it. And again, if somebody comes in, they take a bite of the steak and they say, wow, who made this? I would be a liar to say I made it. And it's no good to say, yeah, but I gave the prompt, I gave the prompt for the steak. I described what kind of steak I would like. Anyone could do that. A five year old can do that. Just imagining what you want is not the hard part, right? Of, of, of this. It's the actual creating part. I mean, I can imagine in my head, I can easily imagine a really beautiful Statue. I could come up with that in my head. Anybody could. In my head, I can generate in my mind the most amazing sculpture anyone has ever seen. I can think of a sculpture that, if it existed in the real world, would. Would be the most amazing sculpture of all time. That doesn't make me an artist. The artist is the one who would actually do it, who can actually create it. And yes, the same thing goes for movies. This is why, like, you know, you get into making movies a little bit and you talk to people. Everybody has an idea for a movie. Everyone. Everyone has ideas. I gotta tell you, my idea. Here's a great idea. And the thing is, you know, a lot of times the ideas are terrible, but sometimes you hear the idea and you're like, that's a decent idea. That'd be a good movie. That doesn't make you a filmmaker. It doesn't make you an artist. Can you go do it? Can you actually write that movie? Can you be involved in a real. Can you act in it? Like, can you actually be involved in the creation of the thing? And the other point is where Affleck says that, you know, you're never going to be able to just prompt the AI to generate a whole movie out of whole cloth. Well, I think he's wrong. I mean, AI can do that now. Really. AI could generate a whole movie right now. It's. It's not a matter of AI developing the ability to perform that task. It has the ability right now, but. But the difference is that right now the audience would not accept it. So he's right, in a sense. There. There is no totally AI generated movie that can be made right now that anyone or. Or any sizable portion of people would want to watch. The question then, for the future, is not whether AI will be able to make a movie. It's not whether we'll be in a spot one day where you could just type into a prompt, make me a movie about this. Here, here's three sentences of the plot. Make the movie. I think we're already kind of there, or we're at least very close to it. And I mean, you can already do a shorter version of that. You can have AI make like a 3 minute video. If it could do 3 minutes, it could do 90 minutes. No reason why I can't. So I think we're already there. We're very close to being there. That's not the question. The question is whether audiences will eventually come to accept it. In other words, will audiences become so numb and so soulless and have such Little respect for themselves, that they will settle for something like that? Will audiences eventually say, yeah, you know what? I'll sit down and watch a film that was made by no one and generated by an algorithm with no heart or soul or purpose or meaning at all. That's going to be the question. Because that is, as I've said so many times, you know, that is art, not. Not to be. I was talking about this yesterday, and someone said to me, you know, well, that's a romantic view of art. You have a really romantic view of art. Of course I do. It's art. If you don't have a romantic view of art, then you don't understand art. That's what art is. What other view of it would you have? But that's what art is. An expression of the human heart. And it's a. It's a language spoken, and that can only be spoken and only be understood by beings with rational souls. That's what makes it art. And that's what separates it from mere distraction or mere spectacle or even just mere entertainment. Art can be entertainment, but it's not just entertainment. And. And that's what separates it so. And that will always be the case, which is why AI will never be able to create art. It will never happen. It cannot happen, by definition. For the same reason that AI will never be able to love you. I don't care how advanced it gets. It may get so advanced that it can fool you, if you're a really gullible person, into thinking that it loves you, but it will never be able to actually love because it lacks the essential components of love, which is the human soul, consciousness, and. But so. And the question there, too, is not, well, will AI be at a point where they can. Where it can love a person and you can get married to AI? The answer is no. Will people ever become so degraded that they will settle for. Like marrying a computer? Or will people ever become so degraded that they will settle for watching a piece of art that is not art because it was generated by an algorithm? That's the question. And I think, I hope the answer is no. But all indications are that the answer is yes. That's what scares me. And that is what will do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Great day. Godspeed. What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God? Is that who you think I was alone with?
- [72:25]
Ben Affleck
I knew your father. I am yet convinced that he was.
- [72:28]
Guest/Interviewer
Not of this world.
- [72:32]
Matt Walsh
All men know of the Great Terror. You are my father. That the gods should war for my soul. Princess Garrus, Savior of our people. I know what the Bull God offered you. I was offered the same. And there is a new power at work in the world. I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are each given only one lifesinger.
- [73:01]
Ben Affleck
No.
- [73:02]
Matt Walsh
We're given another. I learned of Yazu the Christ. And I have become his follower. He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one. Trust in Yezu. He is the only hope for men like us. Fate of Britain never rests in the hands of the Great Light. Great light.
- [73:21]
Guest/Interviewer
Great darkness.
- [73:23]
Matt Walsh
Such things mattered to me then. What matters to you now? Mistress of lies.
- [73:29]
Guest/Interviewer
You, nephew. The sword of a high king.
- [73:38]
Matt Walsh
How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield? So clinging to the promises of a God who has abandoned you. I cannot take up their sword again. You know what you must do. Great life, Forgive me. The time has come to be reborn.