Transcript
Matt Walsh (0:00)
Lifelock.
Lifelock Representative (0:01)
How can I help?
Matt Walsh (0:02)
The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't. One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud. What do I do? My refund though. I'm freaking out.
Lifelock Representative (0:11)
Don't worry, I can fix this.
Matt Walsh (0:12)
Lifelock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (0:17)
I'm so relieved.
Matt Walsh (0:18)
No problem.
Lifelock Representative (0:19)
I'll be with you every step of the way.
Matt Walsh (0:21)
One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply today. Matt Walsh Show My new series, Real History has provoked the ire of the libs over at the Atlantic who accused me of trying to understate the brutality and evil of slavery. Which is strange considering the fact that my series actually tells you much more about the brutality and evil slavery than any of these people ever will. Also, AOC makes her debut on the world stage and proceeds to totally humiliate herself as she attempts to issue her indictment of Western civilization and quote unquote whiteness. Plus, yet another trans mass shooting has occurred and an HGTV personality lets a racial slur slip out on camera. She's been apologizing and prostrating herself in hopes of forgiveness, but we know how that turns out. All that and more today on the Matt Walsh. I've released enough documentaries over the years to recognize something of a pattern emerging in terms of how the left will respond. There are really only two options. Either they'll ignore my documentary entirely, which is how most of the media responded to Am I Racist? Despite the fact that it was the top documentary of the decade. Or in the alternative, they'll publish extremely low effort, highly dishonest articles where they review some imaginary version of the film. You know, put words into my mouth and take every important scene out of context. That was the case with what is a Woman when outlet after outlet accused me of being a transphobe who engaged in hate speech, even though 99 of the movie, of course, involved me asking basic, straightforward questions to self described experts in gender ideology. And the other 1% was me asking why those experts were running away from me instead of answering my simple and straightforward questions. So based on these experiences, when I released the first episode of my newest series at the Daily Wire, which is called Real History, I was expecting either a total media blackout or a flood of desperate hit pieces. After all, Real History is a direct challenge to some of the most important tenets of modern leftism. But interestingly enough, Real History has not been met with a total media blackout, nor has it been bombarded with a series of incredibly dumb and lazy smears. Instead of aside from a small number of YouTube videos from historians, which have mostly been positive and very thorough, only mainstream response to Real History has come from the Atlantic magazine, which considers itself to be the bastion of left wing intellectual thought. And right away that got my attention. It's not that the Atlantic is a trustworthy outlet. It's obviously not. In fact, they've created numerous high level hoaxes in just the past couple of years solely to influence elections. But at the same time, if the Atlantic, and only the Atlantic is coming after you, then it means you've done something unique. It means that you've rattled the people who in elite circles of the Democrat Party are taken very seriously. Now, why might Real History have done that? Well, to answer that question, let's see what the Atlantic says. Specifically, quote, Matt Walsh would like you to know you've been lied to. Last month, the right wing provocateur appeared on Megyn Kelly show to discuss his new video series Real History with Matt Walsh. In Walsh's account, the left believes that America was built on slavery and it has no right to exist. And every white American carries somehow that legacy, that guilt in their blood. Therefore, progressives feel they have the moral justification to do whatever they want to white people. Walsh intends to stop this. So in Real History, he relentlessly downplays the brutality of slavery in the United States. Sanitizing slavery has become a core objective of the reactionary right under Donald Trump, a malignant response to the progressive left's oversimplification of American history for their own present day ends. But the truest understanding of slavery doesn't serve any political faction. Rather, it acknowledges the horrors of racial oppression while still allowing us to see beyond them. Walsh also notes that the descendants of Africans trafficked to what became the United States are now in better socioeconomic shape than those whose ancestors remained in the Old World or transported to Latin America or the Caribbean. He draws an odious conclusion from this. American slavery wasn't that bad. Yet the point is not entirely incorrect. Other far more serious thinkers have made versions of it too. Well, there's the the sneering that you might expect from the Atlantic. So they have to acknowledge that my point is actually correct, but it's coming from a person who's not a serious thinker and so, you know, it doesn't count. But you know, for all their preening and all their arrogance, it's clear that the author of this hit piece. Thomas Chatterton Williams has not even watched episode one of Real History. He couldn't be bothered to spend, you know, the hour actually watching the show that we put out before he decided to write about it. And I can make that claim with confidence because there's absolutely nothing in the episode or any episode of the series that relentlessly downplays the brutality of slavery in the United States. That never happens. Instead, the episode is roughly an hour long and it's a look at what slavery entailed all over the world. And yes, as a matter of historical fact, Africans and the Barbary pirates and the Ottomans generally treated their slaves far, far worse than Americans and American colonists. That's just a fact. Americans weren't known for floating canoes in the blood of their slaves, for example. Nor were Americans known for sailing thousands of miles away in order to snatch men, women and children from their homes, throw them onto boats and sexually assault them. That's not downplaying anything. It's just the truth. And serious thinkers, to use the Atlantic's terminology, care about the truth above all else if they are serious thinkers. But the Atlantic doesn't care about the truth. And that's why in 2019 they published an article entitled the fight over the 1619 project is not about the Facts. Now, what's remarkable about this headline is that indeed, the fight over the 1619 Project was about the facts. All of the history was completely wrong, including their claim that Americans fought the Revolutionary War to preserve slavery. But the Atlantic ran cover for the 1619 Project at the time because it served the narrative of the Democrat Party. It advanced racial grievances, which they saw correctly for a time as a pathway to power. Now, the point of real history, on the other hand, is not to advance the interests of the MAGA movement or anyone else. The point is to communicate historically accurate information that is deliberately hidden from us at every stage of our lives. Schools don't talk about it. The media doesn't talk about it. Movies don't portray it. Telling the truth is not downplaying anything. By contrast, it's the fake intellectuals on the left, people like the writers of the Atlantic who've been downplaying the reality of the African and Ottoman slave trade for generations. And largely they downplay it by just not acknowledging that it even happened. But according to the Atlantic, so called MAGA revisionists along with the Trump administration, well, they're the real problem here. So let's read on from their review of the show that they didn't watch. Quote back In March, Trump strong armed a host of institutions by issuing an executive order called Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, which directs federally funded museums, monuments and parks to remove materials that promote corrosive ideology. Last month, the Park Service obliged, eliminating an outdoor exhibit at Independence National Historical park in Philadelphia, where George Washington's house once stood. The exhibit honored nine slaves who toiled at the residence. Trump and his allies seem unwilling to tolerate virtually any acknowledgment that America subjugated black people. Rather than making a dispassionate case against the idea that our country was founded to enslave Africans, MAGA is taking down plaques commemorating basic facts, such as Washington's slaveholding in real history. Walsh turns the clock back further still. So you notice the sleight of hand trick that they're pulling here. They're strongly implying that the Trump administration ordered the Park Service to remove an exhibit which references the fact that George Washington owns slaves. But that's not actually true. If you read the executive order, it orders the Park Service to remove anything promoting a corrosive ideology that demonizes Americans. As the Washington Post reported, the Park Service interpreted that executive order as broadly as they possibly could. It is a form of malicious compliance. Now, the Post reported that, quote, the removals were in line with President Donald Trump's March executive order directing the Interior Department to eliminate information that reflects a corrosive ideology that disparages historic Americans. National Park Service officials are broadly interpreting that directive to implied information on racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights, or persecution of indigenous people. So you see how that works. The Trump administration issues an order telling agencies to stop advancing an anti white, anti American agenda. Democrats then remove displays of slavery, which they were never told to do. And then Democrats say, hey, you made us remove displays of slavery. And because they chose to interpret it that way. And by the way, it's especially ironic that they lump real history in with all this. Again, if this guy had watched the show, which it clearly hasn't. You know that we. We talk at some length about Washington's slaves, and in particular, we talk about his white indentured servants who ran away around the time of the start of the Revolutionary War. Washington put out advertisements seeking the return of those white runaways, and there were many more white runaways than black runaways at Washington's estate. But no one at the Atlantic wants to talk about that because it complicates their narrative that only blacks were victimized by slavery in America, which isn't true. So they hide the truth, and then they accuse us of, you know, being the ones who are hiding the truth. Now, what's funny about all this is that back in 2019, the Atlantic put out an article stating that reparations could mean telling the truth about uncomfortable historical facts. So in that sense, if you took them out at their word, you'd think that they'd be happy about real history. You think they'd consider it a form of reparations? Maybe, but apparently not. Because in reality, like the Atlantic, like so many other bastions of left wing intellectualism, quote, unquote, is collapsing in on itself. Their ideology is incoherent. They have no idea what they stand for or how to construct even the most basic argument about anything or for anything they believe in. This is a big, big problem for the left in general. And in that vein, here's a little factoid that's going to be memory hold immediately. This year's Munich Security Conference was supposed to mark the debut of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez as the new leader of the intellectual vanguard of the Democrat Party. This was intended to be her big moment, her global debut, her opportunity to prove to the world that she has transformed into a serious, thoughtful political leader. No longer does Alexandria Casa Cortez believe that climate change will kill everybody before the decade is over. That that's the old aoc. The new AOC imagines a very different future, one with, well, herself sitting in the Oval Office in three years. And that's why, before the Munich Security Conference began, the Washington Post ran an article about AOC's upcoming appearance at the conference. And in this article, the Post revealed that a heavy hitter named Matt Duss, who serves as the executive Vice president of something called the center for International Policy, had secured a role, quote, advising a case of Cortez's debut in Munich. So this preparation has been going on for months. According to dus, AOC quote, brings an understanding of the way that oligarchy and corruption are part of the problem in our foreign policy and have been for a long time. See, expectations were sky high. Sandy Cortez was going to Munich where she would publicly respond to the keynote address by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in front of dozens of the most high ranking important diplomats in the world. AOC was gonna. She was gonna set the record straight. She was going to outline the world view of the modern left and present a compelling case for why votes voters should should choose the Democrat Party and her. And with that in mind, here's how her appearance got started.
