00:00:18.840We'll discuss how the left has made white supremacy into a completely meaningless concept.
00:00:23.540And finally, Burger King has figured out a cure for the mental health problem in America.
00:00:30.000And we'll talk about that as well today on The Matt Walsh Show.
00:00:40.840So Facebook yesterday stepped up its censorship campaign in one giant purge.
00:00:47.800They permanently banned a number of high-profile accounts.
00:00:51.240The ban includes Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, along with Farrakhan and a few others.
00:00:58.960But it goes beyond that, even, because Facebook banned any representation of these people, meaning you can't share content by them.
00:01:09.960So no InfoWars content is allowed on Facebook at all anymore.
00:01:14.280No Alex Jones content, presumably nothing produced by Milo or Watson either.
00:01:19.600So a Facebook spokesperson said that in explaining this sudden purge of people who all coincidentally, except for Farrakhan, happened to exist on the right end of the spectrum.
00:01:37.040In explaining it, they said that the spokesperson said that these people were banned for, quote, engaging in violence or hate.
00:01:45.800Facebook also said that they are dangerous.
00:01:48.040And then there's a report on the BBC's website, which has more information.
00:01:52.960It says, a spokesperson at Facebook said the ban will apply to all types of representation of the individuals on both Facebook and Instagram.
00:01:59.960The firm said it would remove pages, groups, and accounts set up to represent them and would not allow the promotion of events when it knows the banned individual is participating.
00:02:09.760So you can't even promote an event if one of these guys are going to be there in an email or woman as well, Laura Loomer.
00:02:18.360In an email, Facebook explained its rationale for banning the users.
00:02:21.800Listen to this. It said it said Alex Jones had hosted on his program, Gavin McGinnis, leader of the Proud Boys, who, although I believe Gavin has stepped down from the Proud Boys, I think.
00:02:34.800Um, whose members are, this is according to reading now from the BBC, whose members are known for racist, anti-Muslim, and misogynistic rhetoric.
00:02:44.080Mr. McGinnis has been designated a hate figure by Facebook.
00:02:47.740Facebook said this year Milo Yiannopoulos had publicly praised both, um, uh, Mr. McGinnis and English Defense League founder Tommy Robinson, both banned from the network.
00:02:58.460Laura Loomer also appeared with Mr. McGinnis and Facebook said, uh, she also praised another banned figure, Faith Goldie, a Canadian, a Canadian nation of Islam, uh, a Canadian, sorry.
00:03:09.580I'm, I'm, I almost said a Canadian nation of Islam leader. Um, I'm blending sentences together.
00:03:14.840Next sentence, nation of Islam leader, uh, Louis Farrakhan was banned from making several anti-Semitic remarks earlier this year.
00:03:21.260Okay. I mean, this is just, I'm, I'm, it's somewhat bewildering. So Milo is banned according to Facebook, um, because he spoke positively in public about Gavin McGinnis.
00:03:37.000So that's a violation of the rules. Now, if you express support in public, not even on Facebook, but just anywhere in public, if you express support for someone that Facebook has targeted, then you'll be banned also.
00:03:52.840That's what they're saying. These are the, the sins committed by these individuals that Facebook mentions.
00:03:58.520Um, but if these people really have violated the rules, then why are you banning them all on the same day? Why are you doing this big dramatic thing where you're frog marching them in front of the cameras?
00:04:12.540Um, if you're just objectively enforcing the rules, whatever they may be, then wouldn't you have banned, um, you know, Paul, when he violated those rules, whenever that was?
00:04:24.700And, uh, Alex Jones, whenever he violated them. Now with, with Alex Jones, Alex Jones was banned on Facebook like a year ago. Right. But now it's going even further that if you're, if you're, you know, his, his, his website, everything, if you're associated with him, none, no, no content associated with him is allowed on the site.
00:04:46.780Well, um, you, you know, I think they could have, Facebook could have made an argument for banning Alex Jones back when he was promoting the insane Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, which led to death threats against the parents of murdered children.
00:05:03.340And it was a conspiracy theory that was completely invented and believed exclusively by morons and brain dead idiots. Um, so just be really clear about that. It was a, not only a, not only a stupid conspiracy theory, but a really evil despicable one, which led to, as I said, the targeting of parents whose children had just been murdered.
00:05:26.580And now they have, they have these whack jobs coming after them. Now look, um, that was five years ago though. So if, while Alex, Alex Jones was promoting that conspiracy theory, which he did, if they had said, no, we're not allowing this on this, this is, this is, you know, false information. It's, it's dangerous to the, to the parents who are now being targeted for violence. Uh, we're not going to allow it on our platform.
00:05:52.840And we're going to ban you for promoting it. If they had done that, then we could say, okay, well, that's a, that seems like a consistent enforcement of the rules. Doesn't appear to be politically motivated, but they didn't is the point.
00:06:08.640They, they didn't do anything when, when the, when this, when this conspiracy theory was actually being promoted on Facebook, they didn't do anything about it. Five years later, retroactively, they decided to punish him for past sins.
00:06:20.700And that to me seems to be a problem. Um, so, you know, why did you wait five years? If you're going to ban Milo, why are you banning him now? Why did you wait until now to do it?
00:06:36.160What has he done recently to earn this? Oh, that's right. He spoke in support of Gavin. I mean, he spoke, he said something nice about Gavin McGinnis.
00:06:43.220Well, that makes sense, right? No, it doesn't. Um, but even if that's the reason, why didn't you ban him whenever he said that?
00:06:53.760I'm, I'm pretty sure. I assume Milo has publicly, he's appeared in public with Gavin McGinnis in the past.
00:06:59.180So if that, if that's a violation of the rules, why didn't you ban him as soon as he did it?
00:07:04.660Um, and you know, Paul Joseph Watson, what, what has he ever done to earn a ban?
00:07:11.240I mean, whatever it was, whenever it was, why not ban him when it happened?
00:07:17.180Well, the answer here, of course, is that this is a PR stunt by Facebook.
00:07:20.760And the reason why they don't give more specific reasons for the bans, other than this weird thing
00:07:25.880about Gavin McGinnis is that they don't have specific reasons. This is political censorship.
00:07:31.680They're saying that Paul Joseph Watson engages in violence or hatred. They don't give any examples
00:07:37.320of it whatsoever because, uh, there are no examples. They don't have any examples.
00:07:43.020This is political censorship, plain and simple. Yeah. They tossed Farrakhan in there because they
00:07:48.000needed to have someone, if they're going to do this big thing, they need to have somebody who's not,
00:07:53.740uh, you know, on the, on the quote far right. Although the media has tried to lump Farrakhan in
00:08:01.600with the far right as a far right figure, which of course is, is ridiculous. Uh, Farrakhan is a leftist,
00:08:07.120but, but he's kind of his own weird thing too, right? The fact is Facebook, they don't target people
00:08:13.420who are really associated with the, with the actual far left. Um, no, this is all focused on
00:08:19.820one side. And I could go through a laundry list of far left accounts on Facebook right now that are,
00:08:28.120that are on Facebook and they're spreading far left content, hateful extremist, whatever.
00:08:34.380Um, but let's just remember, I could, there, there, there are many examples, but let's, um,
00:08:38.700let's remember one just from this past week, because we just talked about it recently.
00:08:44.220And, uh, remember we talked about this. Here's the picture again. That's an account,
00:08:49.240a Facebook account run by a burlesque performer. And there she is half naked with a young girl
00:08:56.720stuffing dollar bills into her underwear. Okay. That was posted on Facebook, that picture.
00:09:02.620And the picture was taken down, but I, as far as I know, it was taken down by the person who posted
00:09:10.180it, not by Facebook. Um, and this account, which proudly depicts the exploitation and abuse of
00:09:16.720children is still on Facebook. So that's not what you just saw there in that picture. Okay. That,
00:09:22.840that's not dangerous. Uh, that's not extremist or whatever. No, that that's okay.
00:09:29.300And why is that? Because she's a, she's a, a burlesque performer who, who's, you know,
00:09:36.180promoting public nudity and, and, you know, sex, the sexualization of children. That is a far left,
00:09:42.240uh, uh, agenda item. And so that's why Facebook leaves, leaves it alone. So there are two questions.
00:09:50.780Um, fix my microphone. There are two questions, uh, that we have to ask here about this.
00:09:58.920Number one is, is Facebook right in censoring these people? And the second is, does Facebook
00:10:07.640have the right to censor them? And those are two different questions with not necessarily the same
00:10:13.280answer, but whatever the answer is to number two, before we get to that, I think the answer to number
00:10:18.260one is very clear that no, they are not right in doing it. Uh, and every conservative should be up in
00:10:24.860arms about this, speaking out about it, because this is absolutely political censorship. Facebook
00:10:29.940says that it will ban people who are dangerous and hateful. Yet the only litmus test apparently
00:10:35.780for what's considered dangerous and hateful, uh, is ideological. So by their standards,
00:10:41.800you are dangerous and hateful, or you're at least close to being dangerous and hateful if you're on the
00:10:47.260right. So you can hope that they eat you last. You can hope that you get eaten last, but, uh, you
00:10:54.080will get eaten if you're a conservative. I think that's becoming clear. The problem is that some
00:11:00.200conservatives, um, as I've been watching the reaction from other so-called prominent conservatives
00:11:06.920is that I, I see some of them who, who, who are basically saying, well, I don't like Alex Jones.
00:11:12.840I don't like Paul or Milo. So, uh, so I'm fine with this. You know, I'm, I'm, I'm not going to say
00:11:17.960anything about this because I don't like those particular guys. That is very short-sighted
00:11:22.740thinking right there. Uh, again, it would be entirely different in my view. If Facebook had
00:11:28.400clear rules, clear terms of service, um, and they enforce those rules equally. Now that would be
00:11:35.180different. If Facebook decided they were going to ban everyone who has extreme views, um, everyone who
00:11:42.200could be called hateful, everyone who is radical and what have you, then, uh, then, okay, the site
00:11:48.160would be boring as hell in that case because all the interesting people would be gone, but at least
00:11:53.020it would be consistent. And then Facebook would become a place kind of like LinkedIn or something,
00:11:57.340just a, just a bland sort of meeting place where, um, basically no ideas are, are, are welcome.
00:12:04.920And if that's what they decided they want to do, then, you know, I, I think there'd be no room
00:12:09.200to complain, but when it comes to, when it, when it claims to be a forum for the exchange of ideas
00:12:15.400and it claims to be not politically biased, but then it labels only those on one side as being
00:12:24.240hateful and dangerous and extreme, and then bans them, bans them in one big PR stunt, smearing them
00:12:30.740in the media in the process. That's a whole different ball game. So as for the second question,
00:12:35.740do they have the right to do this? Well, I'll say one thing. I don't see how a company as powerful
00:12:44.300as Facebook has the right to smear anyone as being dangerous and hateful without justification or
00:12:51.500reason. Okay. That seems like libel to me, like defamation. And it has a very real effect on people's
00:12:57.840lives. This is not, this is not just a, you know, any old person saying, Oh, you're hate. It's not,
00:13:02.540it's not just some Twitter trolls saying, Oh, you're hateful and dangerous. When you've got one
00:13:07.020of the most powerful companies in the world, blacklisting you and then going to the media
00:13:11.980and saying, these are violent, hateful, dangerous people. Um, that that's going to affect your life.
00:13:18.160That's going to affect your career. That's going to have a devastating effect on you. And not just
00:13:23.200because you don't have a Facebook account anymore. I mean, you know, try getting a job when you have
00:13:28.920been publicly smeared by the most power, one of the most powerful companies in the companies in
00:13:34.260the world as dangerous and hateful. Think about how that's going to affect your, your, your, uh,
00:13:39.460professional prospects. So if you're going to make those kinds of claims about someone,
00:13:45.900I think you need to provide evidence. You need to provide justification and just giving a couple of
00:13:51.740examples of some of these people, um, you know, hanging out with Gavin McGinnis. That's not enough.
00:13:57.820Okay. That's, that's, that's not going to do it. Facebook does not have the right to defame anyone
00:14:04.020any more than anyone else has the right to do it. If they have evidence to support the claim
00:14:09.680that Paul Joseph Watson is dangerous and hateful and violent, then they should present it. If they
00:14:16.700can't present it, then I think Paul has a case against them, um, because they're defaming him.
00:14:25.420So that's the first thing now, as for their right to ban whoever they want, um, even on a politically
00:14:34.340motivated ideological basis, well, that kind of hinges on what Facebook is exactly. And that's,
00:14:41.500that's the debate, right? And so you'll hear, you'll hear arguments about whether Facebook is just a
00:14:48.520platform or is it a publisher or is it a public utility? Um, if they're a utility like the phone
00:14:54.680company, then no, they can't ban just anyone they want from using their, their platform. Uh, are they
00:15:00.840a utility? Well, I can, you know, I can see the argument for it. After all, phones are a utility
00:15:05.780and, um, and they're a communication tool. Facebook is a communication tool used by over a billion
00:15:11.860people across the globe. On the other hand, you could argue that Facebook is really just an app
00:15:16.420on your phone. So it's more like a channel on your television, not the cable provider itself,
00:15:22.480thus not a utility. I tend to side with that point of view. Um, are they a publisher though? Well,
00:15:28.800if they're exercising this kind of editorial control, that would seem to make them a publisher.
00:15:35.320The trouble is if they're a publisher, then they're going to be responsible for everything
00:15:39.460that's posted on their site. And they don't want to be responsible for that. Um, they don't want
00:15:43.960to be responsible for, for all of it. Um, but if they don't want to be responsible for it, then,
00:15:51.180then they need to be just a platform, just a kind of benign, uh, you know, stage that's provided
00:15:58.400upon which people can stand and express their views. But if they're just a platform, then they
00:16:06.280can't exercise this kind of editorial control over it. If they are exercising the editorial control,
00:16:12.080then that makes them a publisher. So the trouble seems to me that Facebook is dancing between all
00:16:17.580of these different lines. One minute it's a publisher, the next it's a platform, the next
00:16:21.660it's a utility. Um, I think it has to be one thing or the other. It has to decide what it is.
00:16:27.340And then it has to behave that way. It seems to me for now though, I will say that sure,
00:16:34.020they have the right to ban people generally speaking, but they don't have the right to smear
00:16:40.360anyone without basis. Um, and putting rights aside and looking instead at what is right.
00:16:46.640This is not right. What they're doing here is not right. It's, it's not a war on extremism. It's not
00:16:52.680an effort to stop hate. Okay. It's not any of that. This is political censorship, plain and simple.
00:16:58.780That's what it is. And, um, we need to be speaking up against it. All right. So a woman posted
00:17:06.380this on Twitter, approvingly posted, uh, I should add, it's a photo of a lecture slide from some
00:17:13.020class, not sure, not sure where, um, I assume a college class. And anyway, look at this, the,
00:17:23.900the slide lists what it calls, um, characteristics of white supremacy.
00:17:29.700And, uh, it lists characteristics of white supremacy and it lists among other things as a
00:17:38.340characteristic of white supremacy. It lists, um, objectivity. And then as you could see other
00:17:43.220kind of banal, uh, or, or positive quality being objective, I would think is, is a positive thing.
00:17:49.920The idea of objectivity being a characteristic of white supremacy is apparently it's a thing now on
00:17:56.220the left. This isn't the first time I've seen this. In fact, I remembered, I had to go look it up
00:18:00.480because I remembered seeing this in an article. It was on the national review a few months ago.
00:18:05.380Um, and just the first few sentences of the, of the article say a course that will be taught
00:18:09.280at a Hobart and William Smith colleges next year will teach students that objectivity meritocracy,
00:18:16.140uh, our exam objectivity meritocracy are examples of white mythologies and social constructs.
00:18:21.920The description for the class says, uh, this course explores the history and ongoing manifestations
00:18:27.680of white mythologies, longstanding, often implicit views about the place of white male
00:18:33.000Euro American subjects as the norm against which the peoples of the world are to be understood and
00:18:38.580judged. The, the, the class is titled white mythologies, objectivity meritocracy, and other
00:18:45.200social constructions. Now I'm not sure if this slide is a, is from that particular class or not,
00:18:53.180but either way, here's the point. Um, white supremacy does exist in this world. There are
00:18:59.820real white supremacists. There are real white racists out there. We, we have seen them. I don't
00:19:05.940think there are a lot of them comparatively speaking, but they do exist. They are out there yet.
00:19:12.000But the left has, and some of them are quite dangerous, legitimately. So, which is what makes
00:19:21.180it so unfortunate that the left has made itself incapable of fighting real white supremacy because
00:19:27.560it treats everything as white supremacy. This is the thing that I, that for some reason leftists
00:19:34.260fail to grasp. Um, when you call everything white supremacy, when you call everything racist,
00:19:41.120when you call everything sexist, when you call everything homophobic on and on and on, then
00:19:46.540you're not going to be left with any meaningful words to use or meaningful labels to use when
00:19:54.640you actually encounter those things for real. If you've called everything white, if it's, if it's
00:19:59.680white, if you're a white supremacist for trying to be objective and you're going to call someone
00:20:04.820like that, a white supremacist, then what are you going to say about the person who comes along
00:20:09.540and actually says, I think white people are better than, than, than everyone else. And, uh, you
00:20:14.560know, and, and people of other colors are inferior. What do you, you just used white supremacist on the
00:20:21.560guy who was talking about objectivity. What are you going to say about this guy? Well, you're going
00:20:25.980to call him a white supremacist too, but you have just basically let him off the hook because you put
00:20:31.820him in the same category as that other guy over there who was just making a benign statement about,
00:20:37.600uh, about objectivity. You have made it so that you, there's, there's nothing meaningful you can
00:20:43.600say against white supremacy because you have turned everything in white, into white supremacy.
00:20:49.000And when everything is white supremacy, then nothing is white supremacy anymore because the
00:20:53.540word has no meaning. That's the problem. All right. Two other things to get to before we
00:20:59.520read some emails. Um, first with no setup, just watch this.
00:21:08.520I can't believe my student loan. I'm never moving out of my parents' home.
00:21:15.880Just got ghosted. Should've known. Pretty sure I'll end up alone.
00:21:22.140They say I'm too young to raise my baby girl. Take your opinions and suck it world.
00:21:29.140time in awe. All I ask is that you let me feel my way. All I ask is that you let me feel my way.
00:22:17.820So they're renaming all of their all these meals according to certain moods and because it's going to promote mental health, which which I have to say, you know, I was feeling really depressed.
00:22:30.580But now that I can get a pissed meal at Burger King, everything is better.
00:22:35.940You know, I don't even have to go to counseling.
00:22:38.180Burger King has solved mental health, folks.
00:24:28.400I'm not you know, I'm not making this up.
00:24:31.120Last week, my wife said she was going to the post office and I found her six hours later lying in the aisle at HomeGoods, passed out from pillow fever.
00:24:53.900Because that should be a thing if it's not already.
00:24:57.540All I'm saying is, you know, she put those in trash bags.
00:25:00.000And I'm, you know, I'm not saying anything.
00:25:06.420I just I worry that those things are in trash bags and there could be a terrible mix up wherein someone accidentally thinks that those trash bags are filled with trash and puts them on the curb on trash day.
00:25:56.200I always assumed he had similar views to mine based off what he said.
00:25:59.300However, I was shocked the other day when he started trying to convince me of the anti-Semitic theory that the Jews are running the world.
00:26:04.940At the time, I didn't know what to say.
00:26:07.920So all I told him was I think he's wrong and that a large part of success with Jewish people comes down to their values, which their religion inculcates in them.
00:26:16.440However, I still can't shake this uncomfortable feeling I have around this guy because I believe him to be anti-Semitic.
00:26:22.100Should I try to tell him further why that viewpoint is dangerous and wrong or should I just end communication with him?
00:26:26.760Well, I don't think that we should immediately dump people to the curb and ostracize them for having views we disagree with, even if those are insane and hateful views, which anti-Semitism is.
00:26:38.800So what I would do is I would continue to talk with him and try to show him the light a little bit, as you've been doing.
00:26:46.760You know, sometimes people, maybe you don't know a lot about this guy yet, but sometimes people will, they'll have an idea in their head.
00:26:53.840They'll be, they'll be harboring this idea, but they don't say it out loud because they're rightly ashamed of it.
00:27:00.460And then maybe one day they finally do say it out loud because they're kind of testing the idea.
00:27:06.200They're seeing if it holds up to scrutiny.
00:27:09.760And maybe that's what he was doing there, you know.
00:27:14.240Sometimes a person doesn't realize how bad their idea is, how stupid or detestable until they've said it and they've kind of put it out there for, for, to be analyzed and argued against.
00:27:49.840And so you'll, you've helped him out in that case.
00:27:51.640I would just, so I've just talked to him.
00:27:53.160Ultimately, if you find out that he really is a committed, passionate, unmovable anti-Semite, then maybe find someone else to eat lunch with.
00:28:00.200But I wouldn't assume that right off the bat.