← The Matt Walsh Show
Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:00]
A
Let's be honest, the cost of living isn't just high, it's exhausting. If you've been leaning on credit cards lately just to cover the basics like groceries, gas and utility bills, you're essentially paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more. Why keep handing your hard earned paycheck to big banks when you could keep it for your own family? My friends at American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their equity to pay off high interest debt. With mortgage rates currently in the fives, on average, American Financing is saving their customers 800 bucks a month. It's nearly $10,000 a year back in your pocket. It's not just a loan, it's a total financial reset. Takes just 10 minutes to find out what you could save. There are no upfront fees and no obligation to talk to a salary based mortgage consultant. Here's the kicker. Start today and you could even delay two mortgage payments. American Financing, America's home for home loans. 866-569-4711 that's 866-569-4710 or visit american financing.net/walsh when you challenge what have become the most sacred myths in American history, the myths that provide the foundation and rationalization for leftist ideology, particularly the myths of the civil rights era, people are going to come after you. And I knew we were going to be attacked in dishonest and personal terms the moment we launched my real history series, but I didn't quite expect, but probably should have expected, is that the most aggressive attacks, many of them would come not from antifa types, although we got plenty of that, but from people who think of themselves as natural enemies of the left, the self described free thinkers, conservatives, libertarians. It turns out that when you tell the truth about American history, you make a lot of enemies. Very quickly. And today, as comprehensively as I can, I'm going to respond to these people now. This is not merely an academic historical debate. This is a battle that we simply need to win. Unless we want to see another 60 years of anti white racial discrimination and violence in this country. It's a battle we need to win. Unless we want another 60 years in which white men are punished for the alleged sins of their ancestors, leading to mass opioid deaths, suicides, bridge collapses, airplane crashes, substandard medical care and the general decline of every aspect of daily life. This has to end. And it has to end right now. In order for it to end, we have to start with the truth. So on that note, here's a clip that has now received millions of views and tens of thousands of replies on social media. It's a short segment from one of our shows last week that was posted to X by an account called Wall Street Apes. And here it is. Watch. The Rosa park story you were taught in school was fake too. This was not just some woman on her way home from work. Civil rights leaders thought Parks would make a sympathetic face for their lawsuit and then told her, a longtime NAACP volunteer, to create a situation where she'd be arrested. This gets sold to the public as totally organic, when actually it's play acting to create ideal conditions for a court case or scandal. The iconic photo of Parks on the bus was staged months after the incident as part of a press campaign. The white man sitting behind her in the bus photo was a journalist, which you probably didn't know. Now that is 30 seconds. It's not the entirety of what I have to say about the subject. I did an hour long monologue last month, Monday about the myths surrounding the civil rights movement, plus an hour long history special which which itself is only part one of two. And the point about Rosa Parks, which I flesh out in more detail in our last real history episode, is part of a larger point about the civil rights movement. The point is that you have been fed a lot of lies about the movement itself and the people who led it and how they led it. You've also been fed lies about the ultimate impact of the Civil Rights act and its legacy. My goal is to correct the record and tell you the truth for no other reason than the very simple reason that the truth matters. Period. Now, the point about Rosa Parks is not the most important point. I never claimed it was. It is my critics, of course, who've decided to glom on to this 30 second bit and pretend that it's the entirety of my case because they're too afraid or too dishonest or too stupid to engage with the whole argument. Now, all that said, I have no intention of backtracking, certainly no intention of apologizing for what you heard in that clip. As a factual matter, everything I said was true. You can pull up a typical history textbook, including textbooks and resources published by the largest textbook publishers in the country, and you will not be told the full story about Rosa Parks. We'll cycle through some images from these books on the screen right now. Every single one of these history textbooks fails to mention that Rosa Parks was a longtime activist. One of them simply describes her as a seamstress. That is indeed the whole story that millions of school children have been taught for generations in which have been immortalized by Hollywood and the media. The story is that Parks was an unassuming seamstress who sat herself down in the whites only section of the bus one day, tired after a long shift at work. She was arrested. And suddenly this meek and mild woman became the organic spark that set off a movement that changed the world. It is just a fact that this is the story taught by our mainstream institutions. It's also a fact that that story isn't entirely true. It fails to mention that she got arrested on purpose as part of a larger movement of which she was a formal participant to galvanize public support and change the law. It fails to mention that the iconic photograph of her on an empty bus was staged. It fails to mention that she was a radical who was a regular attendee at Communist party meetings for years. It fails to mention that she attended the Highlander Folk School in Newmarket, Tennessee, which was a school set up by a major labor union to train agitators. And it fails to mention that in fact, months before the Rosa Parks incident, another woman, Claudette Colvin, was arrested in Montgomery when she refused to give up her seat for a white passenger. But her story was not used as the same kind of rallying cry because she had an out of wedlock child and was judged to be less sympathetic as a result. Now, these are all facts about Rosa Park Parks. Do they mean that she was an evil person or that segregation was good? Do they mean that the tactics were unjustified in this case? Do they mean that Rosa Parks ought to have just sat in the back of the bus without complaint? No, obviously not. And if you interpret my statements that way, then you are willfully obtuse or unwillfully obtuse, but certainly obtuse in either case. And whatever the reason for your obtuseness, you are not suited to be involved in adult conversations. The point about the facts is, first of all, that they are facts. And they are facts that have been deliberately withheld from millions of Americans. Now, sure, the facts are available to anyone who wants to go find them. It's not like I had to go searching in an ancient tomb in the jungle somewhere like Indiana Jones to uncover these hidden secrets of history. The facts are out there for anyone to discover at any time, but they are not a part of the story that the school system generally tells. And they are not a part of our popular conversation about Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement generally. I do want to mention one thing. Somewhat as an aside, although I am obviously not demonizing Rosa Parks as I've been accused of doing or attacking her, denigrating her at all, really it is. It's interesting to notice that the very idea of someone allegedly attacking her is so repulsive and offensive to so many people. Meanwhile, some of the greatest heroes in the history of mankind are regularly demonized, denigrated, slandered, defamed, their monuments defaced, torn down, in some cases, set on fire. So Rosa Parks may not be even mildly critiqued. Her myth must not be questioned to the slightest degree at all. And that is according to the very people who at the exact same time, are pissing on the ashes of the men who literally built Western civilization. And that should tell you something. Now. Anyway, back to the textbooks. One of the textbooks calls Parks an NAACP member, which is obviously underselling her role in the organization. In truth, she was elected secretary of the Montgomery branch of the naacp. Ed Nixon, president of the Montgomery NAACP branch, had told her to contact him if she was ever arrested for refusing to comply with the bus's segregation rules after an earlier incident in which she was thrown off. And indeed, the moment Parks was arrested, the NAACP sprang into action, using Parks arrest as a test case in the courts, which, of course, was the plan all along. Textbooks also states, quote, parks refused to give her seat to a white man after being bailed out of jail. She decided to fight the laws requiring segregation in court. This is from the textbook produced by OpenStax US History, which describes itself as a comprehensive, peer reviewed, open educational resource textbook published by OpenStax at Rice University. This is a resource that supposedly is used by more than 7 million students annually. And it's deliberately misleading. She certainly did not spontaneously decide to fight the laws requiring segregation after she got out of jail. That was instead the whole point of her act of defiance in the first place. And that's not even getting into the egregious use of the staged photograph of Rosa Parks, which I mentioned. We'll put that Scholastic book cover up on the screen again. This is a. A book that, according to Scholastic, is attended for children in grades four to six. It's a staged image showing Rosa park sitting on a mostly empty bus in front of a white journalist. But if you're a fourth grader or even if you're an adult, you probably don't realize that you'll come to the conclusion that you're seeing a photo of her civil disobedience in action. The cruel white guy is demanding that she move even though the bus is empty and you know she's standing her ground. Pretty much every politician in the country has reinforced that narrative, just as one example of many Watch this morning we
- [09:51]
B
celebrate a seamstress, slight in stature but mighty in courage. She reminds us that this is how change happens, not mainly through the exploits of the famous and the powerful, but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility that continually stubbornly expand our conception of justice, our conception of what is possible.
- [10:33]
A
She reminds us this is how change happens, not mainly through the exploits of the famous and powerful, but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility. This seamstress, though small in stature, was really mighty, he says now. Again, the implication is that she was just some anonymous woman who bravely defied expectations. That's not actually true, and I could pull a million more examples of these kinds of claims being made by school teachers and presidents and everybody in between. We're all repeating the same narrative, which again, is not true. And that should matter to you, because the truth should matter to you. Yet, as I was, as I mentioned, I was attacked pretty viciously from both sides of the political aisle just for pointing out the basic truth of this historical episode. It would be impossible to go through and read every criticism, many of them totally hysterical, accusing me of somehow supporting segregation by attempting to shed light on the Rosa Parks narrative instead of sifting through the entire pile of dim witted gripes and complaints and accusations. Instead, I'll highlight and respond to just a few. And these are all coming from people who claim to be on the right, or at least not on the left. So, for example, here's a hot take from Alex Griswold at the foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which used to be the foundation for Individual Rights in Education or fire. They changed their name recently. This is an organization that many conservatives respect. And here's his defense of lying to school children about a key moment in American history. Quote the thing is, children are stupid. You do not present a nuanced version of history to 5 year olds. And that's okay. The sole downside is that those who remain stupid don't pay attention when you introduce nuance later in their teens and believe they were lied to. Now I should mention that Alex is in charge of comms over at fire, whose foundational mission originally was an organization to defend the rights of students. And so it perhaps is somewhat alarming that this person also believes that students, at least at a young age, are, quote, stupid. Now Perhaps Alex is only speaking for himself as a child. As a parent of six, I will tell you that in my experience, children are not stupid at all, although they have a higher likelihood of becoming stupid if you treat them like they already are. And in any case, there's nothing particularly nuanced about saying that Rosa Parks engineered the incident in the context of a larger coordinated effort, rather than being some totally random person, anonymous person who spontaneously became the focus of national discourse. That's pretty straightforward. That's not confusing. Children can certainly grasp the context, the concept of that and the context. And. And of course, contrary to what Griswold says, most of these children are never informed about the lie. They continue to believe that rose the Rosa Parks story into adulthood because everybody, even Obama himself, is repeating it. So Alex imagines some fantasy scenario where young children are given an unnuanced, largely false version of civil rights history and then a few years later are granted access to the full truth by the very same education system that by his own admission lied to them earlier. Now, that would be a rather insane way of teaching American history if it were real, but it isn't. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans are never given anything but the childish version of events. I mean, perhaps Alex will next claim that at some point later in their teens, children in school are also told that Martin Luther King Jr. Was actually a communist, a plagiarist, and a sexual degenerate who did not preach or believe in a colorblind society, but rather advocated openly for a white men versus everyone else approach to race relations. Those are also facts. Will Alex Griswold look at us with a straight face and pretend that there's a point in a child's mainstream education where those facts are ever presented honestly? No. We all know put all this gaslighting to the side that children in school are never given the true version of Martin Luther King Jr. The childish version of Martin Luther King Jr. Which is to say the false version is the only version ever provided. That's also true of Rosa Parks, who I will freely admit was a much better human being than Martin Luther King Jr. Continuing on, here's a post from the account. Bronze Age pervert who pretends to be some kind of right wing dissident, yet here are bold and brave right wing dissident is strongly implying that I am racist for questioning the Rosa Parks narrative. Quote, the photo was staged. But is Matt Walsh saying there was no colored seat rule for bus? Is he admitting there was and that it would be a good thing what was Rosa Parks arrested for? Is Matt Walsh for that law, or is he just saying facile things that seem radical but aren't? No, I don't know much about the Bronze Age pervert. I don't really want to know much about him. Though I can't be surprised that a man who calls himself a pervert would also suffer, apparently from intellectual disabilities. Claiming that I must support segregation on buses, if I question the narrative about some of the people who oppose segregation on buses is like claiming that I must support slavery if I question the mainstream narrative about slavery. And as it happens, oh yeah, I have indeed been accused of just that. This is the game that leftists, and now even right wing dissidents and self described perverts like to play. They tell a story about the history of slavery or segregation or some other evil, and if you just raise your hand and say, hey, you know, that story is not entirely true, then you're immediately accused of supporting the evil itself. You know, it's like if you got into a car accident and lied about some of the details and then accused me of supporting car accidents or being happy that you were in one. When I correct you, of course, all of the people attacking me understand that the truth does indeed matter. It's a mortal threat to the narrative they've built. In fact, the point of portraying Rosa Parks in that staged photograph all alone on an empty bus with one white guy behind her, is to send a message about white people in general, not just the white people involved in segregation. Now, it's not a coincidence that the civil rights era and slavery are used today to demonize white people universally and imbue a kind of blood guilt onto the entire race. The reason why the civil rights movement is, to put it very generously, simplified in schools is precisely so that this demonization effort will not be obstructed or made complicated in any way. And then those same children learn false narratives or simplified mythologies about Emmett Till or Martin Luther King Jr. Or Harriet Tubman or George Floyd. And over time, these narratives are cumulative. They all reinforce the perspective that black civil rights activists were unquestionably righteous in every way, and white people didn't go along with whatever they said were vile sociopathic bigots. And that's all there is to say about it. Black activists are portrayed as noble and peaceful, while whites, really all white people during that era and also today are the unthinking, violent aggressors. And that's just kind of the story that we've all heard over and over and over again. There are certain things that are just timeless. A good leather jacket, a solid watch and a well made pair of boots. That's part of the appeal of Tokovas to Covas makes handcrafted western boots that feel classic and work whether you're dressing up for a wedding, heading to a concert, spending the weekend outdoors, or just looking for something that's actually last longer than a season. And not only do they look great, they feel great too. Their boots are extremely comfortable, handcrafted in over 200 steps using premium leathers and construction techniques designed to feel broken in right out of the box. You never have to worry about a stiff, painful break in period that makes you wince with each step. They also have a huge range of styles and materials, everything from traditional cowhide and goat leather to more exotic options like ostrich. They even make boots for little ones. So if you're ready to purchase your kids first pair of cowboy boots, check them out. And part of what makes the brand interesting is the in store experience itself. Most retail shopping now feels rushed and transactional. To Cova stores are built around slowing things down a little bit. Can actually try things on, ask questions, get fitted properly, customize your boots, have them branded, grab a complimentary drink while you browse. It's more like an old school outfitter than a modern chain store. Plus they don't just make boots. They also carry denim belts, wallets, performance shirts and other western inspired pieces built with the same focus on craftsmanship and timeless style. With more than 50 stores across the country, there's probably one near you right now. Get 10% off@tekovas.com Matt when you sign up for email and text, that's 10% off@t e c o v a s.com Matt to covas.com Matt c site for details to Covas Point your toes West One of the more expensive mistakes homeowners make is assuming that the cheaper option is basically the same thing. Well, usually it's not. Everybody has, you know, bought some knockoff version of a product at some point. Does it look close enough? A cheap tool? An off brand appliance? We've all been there. A lot of times you end up paying more in the long run when you inevitably have to replace it or fix the problems it caused. Especially true when it comes to your house. Gutters are one of those things people don't think about very much until there's a problem. Overflowing water can damage landscaping, foundations, siding, basements and other parts of your home. Water ends up going where it was never supposed to go. And that's why systems like Leaffilter exist. Leaffilter is designed differently from a lot of knockoff gutter guard systems out there. Some hood style guards struggle during heavy rain where water can spill over the edge instead of draining properly. Other systems leave gaps where leaves and debris still get inside. Leaffilter uses surgical grade stainless steel micro mesh designed to block debris while still channeling water away from the home where it belongs. It's engineered specifically to handle everything from light rain to heavy downpours. Plus it's convenient. Leaffilter installations are handled by trusted professionals who clean, realign and seal gutters before installation and repair damaged sections when needed. Every installation also comes with a lifetime transformable warranty and a no claw guarantee. That's why there's more than a million homeowners who trust Leaffilter. Help protect your home today with Leaffilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com walsh this Memorial Day. Get up to 50% off install +$250@leaffilter.com Walsh minimum purchase required restrictions apply. See representative for warranty and promotion details. Now I suspect the real reason that all these people are so angry at me for pointing out this fact that supposedly everyone knows is that they're aware that the emotional response to a trained activist getting arrested knowing she'd be immediately supported by her higher ups is different than the emotional response to a tired seamstress being forced out of her seat on an empty bus. Now, it's obviously wrong to force her out of her seat in either case, but you get a much greater emotional response in the latter. And so that's, that's what they went with. That's the kind of emotional narrative that's at the core of the legacy of the civil rights movement and what it has done over the years is lock white and black into permanent oppressor and oppressed roles. And it's being used to justify things that go far beyond allowing people to sit wherever they want on the bus, which everybody agrees with. In other words, they lie about this because it matters. Only last month, decades after full legal equality was achieved, did the Supreme Court finally throw out parts of a civil rights era law that set aside special congressional districts for black people. And for decades, policies that disadvantaged white people and favored minorities were not just widely accepted, they were pushed by the government itself in many areas. The legacy of the civil rights era is about something much more than equality, and it would be far more difficult to sell to the public if it weren't for the decades of programming which Americans are exposed to through media and the education system now. The ultimate effect of all the little lies and omissions you see frequently in the popular history of the civil rights movement is to prime people to believe that even when atrocities were committed against whites by blacks, the white people deserved what they got due to some earlier collective offense. And this priming worked. In part two of our civil rights documentary, which will come out soon. We discussed the book Left behind in Rosedale. It's full of firsthand accounts of the horrific abuse that elderly whites endured in suburban Texas as a mostly white area gradually became mostly black after the main drama of the civil rights movement. And these are the white people who couldn't flee, couldn't participate in so called white flight. And what happened to them is they were beaten, raped and even killed. The elderly women, people who couldn't defend themselves. Nobody was spared. Now if this was happening in a remote jungle village overseas, people would call it an ethnic cleansing. Instead, it happened near Fort Worth and people barely talk about it. And when the author of Left behind in Rosedale approached liberal academics about the murders and sexual assaults and wanton anti white violence that he was witnessing, the liberal academics told him essentially that, well, you know, the white people had it coming. Local officials refused to respond to the most obvious problem in the world, which is mass racial attacks on the elderly, because they they too had internalized this view or had been rendered powerless by a society that had internalized it. Of course, we saw similar arguments when major cities were torched during the 2020 racial reckoning. We were told that small businesses in Kenosha, Wisconsin had insurance, so we shouldn't object to mobs of black rioters destroying them. Racist jokes can make national headlines. While horrific anti white murders will go largely ignored. This kind of insanity doesn't develop overnight. It's carefully engineered over time. And again. This is why the truth matters. Over at something called Unheard magazine, thus named I assume because nobody's ever heard of it, a writer named Sohrab Amari pretended not to understand any of this. And again, this is someone who would claim to be conservative, or at least not a leftist. And here's what he wrote in a blog post titled Matt Walsh is promoting junk civil rights history. This is a response to that 30 second clip of my show last week. Quote, quote from Unheard, the high school story on which I was reared, and rural Utah of all places, didn't hide the ball on Parks's activist background or the role of the wider civil rights movement in creating a confrontation that would lead to a constitutional challenge to dejour racial apartheid in the American South. Meanwhile, the fact that there was planning involved doesn't turn Parks's case into play acting. There really were laws in the books relegating black people to the back of the bus. Parks really did break one such ordinance in 1955, and she really was arrested. Now, immediately from reading this, I could tell that Sohrab has not watched our civil rights documentary. It's obvious because we literally make this point in the episode he chose not to watch. He doesn't cite a word from the documentary, which goes into much more detail on Parks and her specific story, including why I'm bringing it up in the first place and why it matters. So you can just listen to that rather than making wild assumptions. But instead, in a triumph of lazy editorializing, he quotes the 30 second clip of my Daily show from someone else's X account accuses me of promoting junk history, which if it were true, would certainly be a terrible indictment of my history series. But he didn't watch the history series, not even one minute of it. He watched only a 30 second out of context clip and then declared that my entire history project is junk. Now I pointed this out to him and and he responded by saying I'm not making this up, that he doesn't need to listen to the actual point I'm making, which he's allegedly responding to because quote, 10 million more hours wouldn't be enough to redeem it. But in fact, it doesn't take 10 million hours to explain why the mainstream Rosa Parks narrative is false. Actually took only a few minutes. But Sohrab doesn't have a few minutes to spare. He's too busy writing clickbait junk for his failing blog about a history special he didn't watch. Now this is not surprising coming from Sohrab, by the way, given that he has ties to George Soros, the left wing billionaire who wants to destroy America. This is reporting from Vanity Fair. Quote, this past June in London, the Open Society Foundations convened a meeting of small publications from around the world. Editors traveled from South America, Nigeria, Mexico, Argentina, the United States and elsewhere. In the preceding year, the foundations, now under the championship of George Soros son Alexander, had unleashed what felt like a flood of funding in a small budget world of little magazines. Standing apart from the other Americans was Sohrab Amari, an editor of the online magazine Compact and the former OP editor of the New York Post. Perhaps the Only thing Amari shared with many of the other attendees is that his organ, his magazine, is a recipient of OSF funding. The tension in London was palpable. Now with that history, you have to wonder who exactly is funding unheard? It's a tiny publication with no real following. They haven't produced anything worthwhile, just kind of non stop ankle biting like this. And they're furious about all about, of all things, the fact that a commentator is telling the truth about Rosa Parks. It's almost as if they understand that if conversations about history continue, it will be devastating for the anti American movement in this country. The myth of the civil rights movement is a load bearing element in the moral universe the left has tried to create. The more people learn how they've been lied to, the harder they are to control. You know, you can't guilt someone who no longer trusts you. Ironically enough, in the process of attacking me, Sohrab claims I'm only interested in producing inflammatory content for clicks, which is projection. You know, the ratio of work that we put in with our history series compared to what he put into his hit piece is about, I don't know, a thousand to one. Guys like Sohrab are interested in sniping. We're interested in telling people the truth about American history, which should be the goal of our public school systems and our journalists, but it isn't. Now, keeping with this theme of fake intellectuals, one of the most interesting responses I received was from the prominent blogger Matt Matthew Iglesias. Here's what he wrote about my Rosa park segment. Quote, I guess I went to a better school because this is exactly what they taught me. It's a brilliant case study and discipline, strategic nonviolent action. This is one of the most revealing posts I've ever seen on X. And although he obviously didn't intend it to be because you attended Harvard University as well as the Dalton School in New York, and these are some of the most elite schools in the United States. Tuition at the Dalton school is around $70,000 a year, which is quite a lot for A K through 12 school, needless to say. Well, it makes complete sense for these kinds of schools to be honest with their students about how the Rosa Parks narrative was engineered. Schools like Harvard and Dalton see their role as educating the next generation of activist leaders. So these are the people who are supposed to go out into the world and concoct false narratives and race hoaxes and grievance politics. You know, they need to understand the mechanics of the civil rights movement so they can re implement them in the 21st century. Think of that con artist Justin Pearson in Tennessee. You know, he went to an elite private liberal arts school in Maine, probably learned all about how civil rights leaders constructed this campaign and the mass deception that followed. And you know, now he's doing the same thing concerning the Voting Rights act and many other issues. Now, on the other hand, people who attended public school state colleges, by and large are fed the stock propaganda narrative. Left wing academics see these students as future foot soldiers or future victims, or both. Rendered passive by decades of emotional priming, they'll be on the front lines voting for Democrats, attending the no Kings rallies, blindly chanting the slogans that they're told to chant. Their role is to mindlessly support whatever fake narrative is cooked up by graduates of schools like Harvard or meekly accepted after the next round of, you know, mostly peaceful protests. And this is why there's been a full on assault against my entire history series, not just the episode on civil rights. One of the most long winded, though I won't say substantive objections that I've received in response to my real history series came from a lengthy YouTube video that I've seen reposted a few times on on X. And actually there have been a few of these. Several historians have posted positive reviews, but we'll focus on this one for now. Here it is. Watch. In total, an estimated 3,000 blacks owned roughly 20,000 slaves in 1860.
- [31:14]
C
This figure seems to have its origins in a Facebook meme, I'm not kidding, which Louis Jacobson of PolitiFact tried to fact check in 2017 but couldn't because he couldn't trace it back to any sort of evidence. Even if the number was true. There's a couple of facts that are being left out once again. For starters, even if the number is accurate, it would still account for just a tiny percentage of all slaves held in the United States in 1860, specifically 1/2 of 1%. In addition, in the Southern United States, if you were a black person who bought a family member from a slave owner, you were not legally allowed to free that person. Legally speaking, they would remain a slave and their children would legally be slaves too.
- [31:51]
A
Now, this has to be one of the more dishonest hit jobs on my work that I've ever seen. And that's really saying something. Most of his criticisms aren't interesting at all. He attacks the editing suggests that AI was used to produce the show, which isn't true. But this particular criticism, which is an attempt to be substantive, an attempt anyway, is deliberately misleading he's saying that I pulled the statistic from a Facebook meme and then cites a politifact article. But he omits the most relevant portion of the politifact article, which I will now read to you. Quote, the most solid data we found was published in an article in the Root by Henry Louis Gates Jr. A Harvard University historian. Gates cited research by Carter G. Woodson, an African American historian who died in 1950. He found that in 1830, a total of 3776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves. With three more decades of population growth, it's plausible the number of black owned slaves could have grown to 20,000 by 1860. Historians told us, quote, I'd imagine that the 20,000 figure quoted in the meme is probably not that far off from being true, said Junius Rodriguez, a Eureka College historian and author of Slavery in the United States, A Social, political and Historical encyclopedia. Okay, in other words, there is indeed evidence that blacks owned 20,000 slaves. So ultimately his criticism. I'm not effing kidding. Is that my claim? According to the fact checker he is citing is quote, not that far off from being true. Fact check rated, not that far off from being true. Okay, so what's the problem here? That I'm right about what I said, but he thinks I learned it from Facebook. Even if I did, which I didn't, what difference would that make? Yeah, you're right about it, but you got it from Facebook. Okay, what if it's true? Why does it matter where you got it if it's true? Is it true or not? Turns out that it is. It would seem to me that that's the detail that matters. Now here's Another alleged you YouTube rebuttal from a guy whose parents have apparently forced him to record his YouTube videos in the storage closet downstairs, which I totally understand from the parents perspective. Watch. The Kingdom of D. The kingdom's wealth, its military power, and its cultural splendor were built entirely on the systematic capture, sale and export of human beings. A Dahomean king named Gezo described the slave trade as the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and health.
- [34:31]
D
Okay, yeah, this guy, this king, all kings. Like, how does this make. How does this somehow absolve Europeans at the helm of the transatlantic slave trade of their responsibility in this? And by the way, again, what he leaves out something that Dr. Seck was telling us when we were filming our movie is that who is encouraging this perpetual warfare, Right? Who is creating this Demand for human trafficking. Was it the kings of dahomey? To some extent, sure. But maybe a slightly bigger factor Was that west africa at this time was. Was becoming sort of enfolded in the global network of capital. Economic pressures were coming into the region. Right. People were becoming dependent. On this global network of trade, and europeans were at the helm of it. And in order to play, these west african kingdoms had to pay. And that meant that they had to wage war on their neighbors. And create that, you know, that supply of flesh for the europeans. Doesn't absolve them, the dahomeans? Not at all. It doesn't absolve them.
- [35:46]
B
It's not.
- [35:47]
D
It's not a question of, like, that they are blameless here. Like, of course, them. Them. But let's be. Let's have an idea of the bigger picture here.
- [35:56]
A
So this falls once again. I mean, you notice a theme here. With a lot of these rebuttals. From people who are, like, clearly upset. But then you get down to the core of the rebuttal, and it really is like, yeah, matt walsh is right, but why is he saying it? That's. That's basically the criticism of the slavery episode, of the rosa parks bit of all of it. The criticism is, oh, yeah, you're right. But, like, why do you feel the need to say it? He's not disputing what I'm saying. Instead, he comes up with an excuse that doesn't make any sense. The dahomey apparently were compelled to do horrible things because of capitalism. I guess it was capitalism made them adopt religious rituals. In which they'd execute thousands of captives. I guess it was capitalism that led these african kings Continue practicing slavery. Long after western powers had attempted to end the practice. That's an important detail here. They kept doing it in africa Long after western powers had gotten out of the slavery business completely. They kept it going in africa and in the arab world, but, you know, somehow, right there, Capitalism made them do it. It's all very coherent. You see, these are. These are smart people that we're talking about here. He does make sure to clarify that the barbarism and butchery. Of the dahomey empire Was, you know, does not absolve europeans of their role in slavery, and which is, I admit, an extremely fascinating rebuttal To a point that I never made. The fact that americans and europeans. Played a role in slavery and were wrong for having done so Is extremely well established at this point. Nobody denies that. Everybody knows that. In fact, it's basically the only thing that the vast majority of people know about slavery. My goal is to tell them about all the other stuff that they probably don't know because doing a special that that where the headline is hey, I'm going to tell you all the stuff you already know about this that doesn't really make a lot of sense. I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be. Summer tends to be the time when families are busiest. People are traveling more, driving more, spending time together, making plans, juggling schedules. My own family has summer traditions we always try to accomplish. It's a lot of fun. But sometimes in the middle of all the joy and activities, your pending responsibilities may start to weigh on you. Life insurance is often one of them. Most people know they need it. The problem is that shopping for life insurance sounds complicated and time consuming and unpleasant. So it stays on the to do list indefinitely. That's why PolicyGenius exists. PolicyGenius is an online insurance marketplace that helps people compare quotes from top insurers side by side. In one place, they're not insurance company. They help people find coverage that fits their needs without having to navigate the entire process alone. Policygenius makes all that feel manageable. Their licensed team helps explain coverage options, pricing and terms, clearly answers questions, handles paperwork, and helps people find policies that fit their budget and long term plans. Instead of spending hours trying to decipher insurance language yourself, you can actually compare policies in a straightforward way. Financial planning becomes a lot easier when somebody simplifies the process instead of making it more confusing. Policy Genius has thousands of five star reviews from customers who found policies that fit their needs quickly and without unnecessary stress. With Policygenius you can see if you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage. Head to policygenius.com Walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com Walsh Most Americans don't eat enough fruits and vegetables. Everybody knows they should eat healthier, but sometimes the busyness of life gets in the way. Traveling, working, grabbing food on the run, eating whatever's available between meetings or kids activities. And suddenly your balanced diet consists primarily of caffeine and convenience food. It's one of the reasons I like Balance of nature. They take whole food ingredients from fruits and vegetables and use a special vacuum cold process to stabilize the naturally occurring phytonutrients. The ingredients are then powdered and encapsulated, making it easy to supplement your diet with real whole food ingredients. Some people here at the Daily Wire incorporate balance of nature in their daily routine by sprinkling the capsules into their smoothies. Some just take the capsules during lunch. Either way, it's easy and convenient. Real fruits, real vegetables, real ingredients, not some miracle compound of the week. Bounce of Nature is a seamless way to stay on top of your nutrition goals and make sure you're getting eating enough of the good stuff. If you make your health too complicated, more often than not, you'll quit. Bounce of Nature makes it easy to stay consistent. Go to bouncenature.com today. Get an additional 10% off the fruits and veggies supplement subscription when you use discount code Walsh now in any case, I don't want to focus too much on the left wing activist because again, I knew they'd respond like this. The response from allegedly conservative outlets has been more surprising. Here's a representative post from somebody named Giancarlo Sopo, who used to work at the Daily Wire but who now posts an interesting slop for the National Review and and some other outlets too. I don't know. He's responding to my Rosa Parks segment, or at least 30 seconds of it. And here's what he says. Quote there's nothing edgy or remotely interesting about this. It's well known that the photo was staged, it's listed that way in the Library of Congress, and a Rosa Parks owned by autobiography that civil rights leaders told her to create a situation where she'd be arrested as a fabrication. It also overlooks the larger moral truth of what was happening at the time. A regime of state enforced racial humiliation that a woman of conscience refused to obey. An intellectual cowards idea of an expose no different from the Churchill or World War II revisionism. A kernel of a fact load bearing lie packaged as we've been lied to about everything. Everyone associated with this should be embarrassed now. Intellectual coward, says Giancarlo, who is obviously very brave, which is why he's jumping on a Twitter dog pile saying the same thing that everyone else has already said and passive aggressively announcing that everyone associated with this should be embarrassed when he really just wants to say Matt Walsh should be embarrassed but he's too afraid to say my name. And of course as established, that 30 second cherry picked clip is not my idea of an expose. My idea of an expose is the entire documentary I just published on the subject and which Giancarlo did not watch, did not cite again, has lumped in with World War II revisionism because people like Giancarlo guys who are not particularly bright or imaginative are basically biologically incapable of having any conversation about any historical subject without roping World War II and Nazis into it. And along those lines, here's more sneering from Emily Zanotti. Again, this is a about that 30 second Rosa Parks clip quote, we're being led astray by the class idiots who let you do all the work on the group project and only show up to the presentation. And it's time we all just fought back a little. We weren't lied to. You're just dumb and lack any intellectual curiosity. So, you know, if you believe what your history books were telling you, if you believed it for your whole life and what the historians and media outlets were telling you, then you're dumb. You lack intellectual curiosity. It's not their fault they lied to you. It's your fault that you as a child took their fraudulent narrative seriously. And you could read through many of the comments to my video, both on social media and on Daily Wire, and you'll find plenty of people who are admitting that in fact, they had no idea they were being lied to. According to Emily Zanotti, all of those people are morons. And she's the enlightened one. She's much smarter than you, you see. And she's, she's, she's very excited to let you know about that. We shouldn't worry about the fact that the schools are brainwashing people with false narratives. It's their fault for being brainwashed. Brilliant point, Emily. Now, there are about a million posts like this. Here's one more. This one's from Robert Downing, who's apparently a senior writer at Texas Monthly. Quote. It's funny that this is being treated like a dunk, as if Rosa Parks willingly challenged the system of segregation despite knowing full well the dangers from her years investigating sexual violence against black women. Doesn't make her even more admirable. Well, it's interesting. If the true story of Rosa Parks makes her more admirable than the fake one, why are the vast majority of students in the country learning the fake one? Shouldn't you of all people be the. Shouldn't you be even more upset that they're learning the fake story that, as you say, makes her less admirable, why all the lying? Why is there no curiosity about this question whatsoever from a senior writer, whatever that means, at an outlet that describes itself as the National Magazine of Texas? And speaking of intellectual curiosity, you'd think that this kind of reply would draw some ire from women like Emily Zanotti. But apparently not. Instead, because my show was clipped down to a 30 second soundbite, I'm described as dunking on Rosa Parks by simply the telling the truth, a truth that my critics at once insist is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. And also that by saying it I'm launching a racist attack against a civil rights hero. Well, which is it? I'm either saying something everybody already knows, which would make me at worst guilty of needlessly stating the obvious, or I'm attacking a black woman with racist invectives. It can't possibly be both. This is true, everyone knows it. And also it's racist. That seems to be the critical consensus. And I must admit I find it a bit bewildering. A leftist slop account with an inexplicably large following, which is to say they're mostly bots called Evan Loves Wharf posted this response Attacking Rosa Parks literally only makes sense if you think black people should have to sit sit in the back of the bus. But wait a minute. Giancarlo just informed me very reliably that my point is not edgy and is in keeping with what the Library of Congress itself would tell us. So again, which is it? I mean, is this a boring historical factoid that nobody denies? Or is it a broadside attack against the very idea of equal rights? My critics can't seem to choose between these two options, so instead they've just pulled both levers at once. The fact that so many respectable conservatives can't help but rush to defend a load bearing liberal, historical, mythological is extremely notable, and it gives us an idea of why. For decades, the American right basically accomplished nothing at all. Turns out the National Review types held the same assumptions and underlying beliefs as the modern left. They were more concerned with beating back effective elements of the right than taking on the left. And as you can see from the response to what we're doing today, that hasn't changed. What's changed is that these people are no longer relevant, and that really ticks them off. And by the way, this is what makes it impossible to have any kind of intellectual conversation about any subject, really. Because we can spend an hour laying out the facts in a well researched, thoroughly explained way with copious citations. And you know, the vultures in social media who pretend to be the vanguards of intellectual discourse will look for the 30 second snippet that sounds the most inflammatory and use that to discredit the entire argument. And if nothing else, all this tells us a lot about the conservative movement whose impulse here is to police the right rather than take on the left and their major culture shaping myths. It makes you wonder what their goals are, what their goals ever were. Of course, apart from their ideological agenda. All these people are, you know, mainly doing this for clicks. It's just grist for the content mill. And they do this all the while pretending to be the, the serious intellectuals in the conversation. We could speculate about what's really going on here. You know, maybe open society funding from Soros is contributing. Maybe we're seeing the result of personal jealousy and resentment. People who are upset that they've lost their audience lashing out at someone who has not. Whatever the case, no one is is more deserving of your suspicion and your contempt than someone who tells you that the truth doesn't matter. Anyone who attacks your motivations for telling the truth or who insists that the truth is subservient to a larger narrative simply cannot be trusted. Communist agitators use the civil rights movement as a tool to enact a total transformation of the American legal system that has led to countless deaths and destroyed major US cities and ushered in a campaign of overt anti white discrimination that continues to this day. That is a fact. And the reason they don't want you to learn the truth about that, the reason both leftists and fake conservatives are united in trying to shout me down at the moment, is that they aren't done yet. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Martin Luther King Jr. Is an American icon widely considered one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. A man who had a vision for a colorblind society, a post racial America. He had a dream. It's just not the dream you thought it was. Were his true aims a colorblind society or something far more radical? Who bankrolled him? What unfolded behind the scenes in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 was civil disobedience actually peaceful? We wanted to show you a clip of the I have a Dream speech, but according to our lawyers, we can't. In fact, King's family has made a lot of money suing media outlets. They want to silence critics like us. What they're doing makes it very difficult to judge Martin Luther King Jr. Not by the color of his skin, but by but by the content of his character. Is America today stronger, more unified and racially equal than before King's rise? These questions demand answers. And as Americans, we are entitled to a full accounting of the civil rights movement and its consequences. King's movement fundamentally transformed our country and our system of government. I speak as a citizen of the world. Each day, the war goes on.
- [50:10]
C
The hatred increases.
- [50:12]
A
No. The first part of our two part special on the civil rights movement, a new Constitution, available now on Daily Wire. Plus.