The Matt Walsh Show - October 21, 2019


Ep. 353 - Media Forgets To Notice Alleged Dem Sex Scandal


Episode Stats

Length

50 minutes

Words per Minute

173.00638

Word Count

8,819

Sentence Count

576

Misogynist Sentences

12

Hate Speech Sentences

16


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Look, I've got to say something in defense of Mitt Romney here. He's catching a lot of flack
00:00:05.080 because it's been revealed, of course, that he had that fake Twitter account. In fact,
00:00:10.800 the only reason we know about that, I guess, is because he told on himself. He admitted that he
00:00:14.340 has a fake account, and then people were able to find out which account it is based on context
00:00:20.360 clues. And it turns out that he's got this fake account, and the fake account's name is Pierre
00:00:25.700 Delecto, which is just a delectable name for a fake account, if I do say so myself.
00:00:32.960 And his account, his alter ego, Pierre Delecto, would often compliment and defend Mitt Romney.
00:00:40.840 And so people are making fun of him for that. But I've got to come to Romney's defense,
00:00:45.000 much like Pierre Delecto would do, and say that I don't blame Romney for having fake accounts.
00:00:49.700 I have fake accounts myself. I have many fake accounts. But the only difference is
00:00:52.940 that my fake accounts have turned against me, and now they all insult me and troll me,
00:00:58.980 just like everybody else. Single tear goes down the cheek. At least my point is, at least Romney's
00:01:05.780 alter ego is loyal to him. And that's got to count for something. I think that speaks to a man's
00:01:09.880 character when you're alter egos. Because think about it. Think about how close quarters you are
00:01:17.940 with your alter ego. You're sharing a brain. And it can be really difficult to maintain a good
00:01:24.520 working relationship. And the fact that he has, I think, speaks to it. By the way, remember,
00:01:31.580 Trump has an alter ego. His alter ego is John Barron. And so John Barron used to,
00:01:38.480 back in the old days in New York, he used to call up the media with flattering stories about Donald Trump.
00:01:43.420 Now, I'll tell you, though, so now this debate has started about who's better. Which one do you
00:01:51.320 prefer, Pierre D'Electo or John Barron? And I got to say, they both have their plus sides.
00:01:56.860 They both have their weaknesses and their flaws, just like any other alter ego would have.
00:02:02.420 But I tend to prefer John Barron just because I like how John Barron, more forward, you know,
00:02:08.960 he's going to call you on the phone. And he's going to get in front of it. And he's, it's John
00:02:15.560 Barron, he's not just playing defense all the time. He's on offense. So what Pierre D'Electo would do is
00:02:21.020 he's just going to defend Mitt Romney against attack. Whereas John Barron, he's going to go and say,
00:02:26.120 I'm going to plant good stories about my friend Donald. And so I prefer that. Here's what I really
00:02:34.300 want to see, though. I want to see a televised debate between Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John
00:02:42.120 Barron, and Pierre D'Electo. That's what that's what we need to see. So somebody get on that. That
00:02:48.380 is pay-per-view material right there. If pay-per-view even existed anymore, it truly doesn't. All right.
00:02:55.540 Much to discuss today, beginning with a sex scandal, a pretty, let's say, remarkable sex
00:03:05.160 scandal in many ways, a sex scandal involving a prominent politician, one that even has accompanying
00:03:14.280 photographs, okay? So it's got all the makings for a big splash type story, but you probably
00:03:24.200 haven't heard about it. The media has already successfully buried it, which tells you that
00:03:28.820 this was a Democrat, of course, obviously. But anytime there's a sex scandal involving a politician
00:03:34.100 and you hadn't heard about it, you know, the story broke a week ago and you're just hearing about it
00:03:41.500 now or a few days ago, then you automatically know that it's a Democrat. But there are other reasons why
00:03:49.060 this scandal is being conspicuously ignored. And I want to talk about that in just a moment. But first,
00:03:53.660 a word from Policy Genius, you know, Halloween is on the way, which means it's time to break out
00:04:00.580 the rubber spiders, the fake cobwebs, the jack-o'-lanterns. We've got all that stuff in our
00:04:06.340 house right now, especially with my kids or fake spiders and everything everywhere, which I saw
00:04:12.220 someone on Twitter point out the irony that, you know, you clear out the real cobwebs so that you can
00:04:20.140 put the fake cobwebs up in their place. I don't know. It's just something that we do as human beings
00:04:24.820 in modern society. But if you've got a family, you might be dealing with something a little bit
00:04:29.260 scarier right now, which is shopping for life insurance. If the idea of looking for life insurance
00:04:34.140 intimidates you, which I know it can for me, then you've got to try PolicyGenius.com. Policy Genius
00:04:42.060 is the easy way to shop for life insurance online in minutes. You can compare quotes from top insurers
00:04:46.980 to find your best price. Once you apply, the Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork,
00:04:52.380 all the red tape. And that's, for me, that's the main thing. It's kind of intimidating when you think
00:04:57.740 about something like life insurance, all of the paperwork and everything, all the hoops you've got
00:05:02.480 to jump through, well, you go to Policy Genius, and they're going to make it really easy for you.
00:05:06.940 This October, take the scariness out of buying life insurance with Policy Genius. Go to
00:05:10.920 PolicyGenius.com, get quotes, and apply in minutes. You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
00:05:16.600 Policy Genius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance. All right. Representative Katie Hill,
00:05:27.360 Congresswoman from California, of course, Democrat, influential, prominent, serves on two
00:05:39.860 important committees, the Oversight Committee and Armed and Service. Armed and Service. So that's
00:05:47.300 three committees. She's on the Oversight, the Armed, and then the Service Committee. Anyway,
00:05:52.000 Armed Service Committee and the Oversight Committee. According to Red State, which originally reported
00:05:57.560 this based on, they're doing this based on information they were provided through text messages
00:06:02.680 and photographs. So they've got the goods. And what they're reporting is that Representative Hill
00:06:09.320 was allegedly involved in a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old female staffer. And then she was
00:06:16.840 allegedly in an affair with another person that worked for her, this time a man. Plus, she was married the
00:06:23.480 whole time. Okay. So this is, yes, this is something like out of a soap opera, but real life,
00:06:28.460 allegedly. So let's take a look at this. I'm going to read some key portions from the report in Red
00:06:33.600 State. Here's what Red State says. Photographs and text messages obtained by Red State show that
00:06:39.320 Representative Hill was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer.
00:06:44.060 The woman, whose name is not being released, was hired by Hill in late 2017 and quickly became
00:06:48.500 involved in a thruple, thruple relationship with Hill and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep.
00:06:54.920 But Heslep and the staffer, according to text messages provided to Red State,
00:07:00.720 believe the polyamorous arrangement to be a long-term committed relationship. The trio took
00:07:05.100 multiple vacations together, including to Alaska, where this photograph was taken, and then they
00:07:09.680 provide a photograph. Hill broke it off eventually. And there are text messages showing this back and
00:07:18.440 forth between her and the staffer, where Hill admits that at least part of her reason for breaking it
00:07:24.100 off is that it's a politically dangerous thing for her to be doing. Which it turns out it actually
00:07:30.880 wasn't because the media is not paying attention and doesn't care. And then that's around the time
00:07:37.300 when her husband found out that Hill had also allegedly been in an affair with her finance
00:07:41.720 director, I guess at the same time. So she was really getting around, allegedly. She was sleeping
00:07:49.820 with everybody at the office, allegedly. And then that's when the husband broke it off. So I guess
00:07:56.480 the husband is saying, hey, I know you were involved in a sexual relationship with this other person at
00:08:02.260 work. That was fine. But then a second person, no, that crosses the line. That's over the line.
00:08:07.880 Okay. You know, we want to, you want to be sexually involved with, with two people. Fine. Three. No.
00:08:18.500 Allegedly, that's what, that's the way that that worked out. Now, as I said, there are text messages,
00:08:25.360 some of which are published by red state. You can go check those out. There are also photos.
00:08:30.120 Um, one, which I won't put up on the screen for you, but it's online where it appears to be Hill
00:08:37.160 naked and brushing the hair of a young female whose hair, whose face is blurred out. Um,
00:08:45.960 presumably it is the, the staffer in question. Very weird, very creepy. So a few things here.
00:08:53.960 Uh, first is any of this relevant to the public? Does it matter? Or, or is it all just gossip?
00:09:05.280 Now I would say it does matter. Um, certainly here, here's, here's the stipulation.
00:09:13.440 According to the standards applied to other public figures and politicians, usually Republicans,
00:09:19.860 it does matter. And here's why. First of all, Katie was, was, uh, Katie Hill was allegedly involved
00:09:25.640 with somebody who was a subordinate, a staffer just fresh out of college. Now the Me Too movement
00:09:32.280 has always insisted, unless I'm hallucinating, I'm pretty sure the Me Too movement has been saying
00:09:36.900 for years now that a power dynamic like that is tantamount to assault. That's not really my standard.
00:09:44.460 That's, I didn't come up with that. That's what the Me Too movement has been saying.
00:09:47.220 That when you've, when you've got a power dynamic, um, where it's a subordinate with, uh, with their,
00:09:54.660 with their boss. And I think if you add in political power that the boss has on top of the just normal
00:09:59.920 empower, uh, uh, power that, that, that someone above someone else in a working environment would
00:10:05.220 have, then, then as the logic goes, the subordinate can't really consent because they're not going to
00:10:11.180 feel totally free to operate in the relationship the way that they would, if, if the person
00:10:17.200 was equal to them in power. Now, personally, I'm not sure that I agree with this idea all the time.
00:10:24.140 I think that it sort of depends, but, uh, but we're not talking about my opinion here. We're
00:10:29.920 talking about the standard that is normally applied. We're talking about the logic that has been the
00:10:35.020 driving force for the Me Too movement. Keep in mind that many of the Me Too stories were not cases
00:10:40.960 of forcible rape. Some of them were, but, uh, but many of them weren't. A lot of the times it was,
00:10:47.480 it was, you know, these were powerful men having, having what appeared to be ostensibly consensual
00:10:53.560 encounters with women, but the women did not feel, they say, free to, uh, to refuse because of the
00:11:01.480 power these men had over them in, in the industry. And so the men were exploiting that power. And again,
00:11:07.860 according to the Me Too movement, that's basically rape. It's basically sexual assault.
00:11:12.800 Well, how is this any different? If that's the standard, how is this any different? It isn't.
00:11:17.660 And the picture of, of Hill brushing the hair naked, I mean, it's just, it's creepy. And it,
00:11:24.140 it shows exactly this kind of dynamic where, where, um, you know, Hill sitting naked in a chair,
00:11:31.860 the girl sitting on the floor, having her hair brushed, it shows this very weird, creepy power
00:11:39.520 dynamic. On top of all that, her female lover was being paid by campaign funds. So there's all kinds
00:11:46.180 of issues being raised there. And that also makes it a public concern. And in addition, she was, as I
00:11:51.480 said, on two important committees. So yet she's having affairs with, with, with all these people who she
00:11:57.940 works with. And, uh, and there are pictures and that sets her up for blackmail, makes her vulnerable
00:12:04.480 to manipulation and coercion, which makes it a potential national security issue. And yet
00:12:11.300 predictably, despite those three factors, which, which make this a, according to normal standards,
00:12:20.000 make this a relevant story. And would you would think make this a big story yet predictably,
00:12:28.480 the story is getting no play. I mean, none at all, even less than I thought when I saw this story on
00:12:34.940 Friday, I, I knew of course, that it's not going to make it into the headlines on CNN. It won't even
00:12:40.240 be reported by CNN or NBC, right? But, um, I it's getting even less play than I thought, even in
00:12:46.940 conservative media, people are leaving this thing alone. It's just, it's just, no one's talking
00:12:53.020 about it. Um, aside from red state and a couple other websites. I saw, I saw a report on, on, uh,
00:13:00.380 Breitbart. I think the Washington Examiner had it, but other than that, it's been, it's been radio
00:13:06.100 silence. Uh, it's been buried. Why is that? Well, um, obviously because Hill is a Democrat, that's one of
00:13:13.200 the reasons that's a big factor, but even more so, I think it's because she's a woman, uh, and women
00:13:19.300 can get away with this kind of stuff all day long. Women are simply not held to the same standard as
00:13:26.620 men when it comes to sexual improprieties. You're just, you're not going to see ever the kind of
00:13:36.400 outrage when it's a woman who is the sexual aggressor or the, you know, the person who's in
00:13:42.960 the exploitative position in the, in the position of power or whatever, when it comes to any kind of
00:13:47.820 sex scandal thing, when, when the woman is the, is the, the culprit, it's just never, ever going to
00:13:55.500 engender the kind of outrage it does with men ever. Perfect example would be all of these stories about
00:14:01.360 female teachers. I've talked about it many times, but, but no one cares. All these stories of
00:14:06.180 female teachers, you want to talk about exploiting your power over someone. Well, that's really
00:14:10.240 clear cut. You're an adult, you're a teacher. This is a kid and you are, you are exploiting that
00:14:15.960 position to get your sexual thrills with a minor. Um, that's, that's, that's wrong. That's criminal.
00:14:24.680 That's saying. And when it's happening all over the place all the time in public school, you think it
00:14:29.240 would be, we'd be treating it like an epidemic and talking about nobody cares. We just, we just say that,
00:14:34.100 you know, whatever. So women get away with this stuff. Can you imagine, just imagine, now I know
00:14:42.540 you don't want to really imagine it. So try to just, just try to, try to imagine the hypothetical
00:14:47.620 without actually imagining the picture itself. But, but think about if there was a picture of a,
00:14:52.600 of a male congressman, uh, naked and brushing the hair of a young female staffer. Can you just think
00:15:03.100 about that for a second? And here's the thing, it could be a Democrat. I don't even think it even
00:15:08.680 now, obviously if it was a Republican, it'd be getting even more attention. But, uh, even if it
00:15:13.420 was a Democrat, I think it would still be getting certainly more attention than this story is
00:15:20.000 that image, that photo would be this iconic thing that everybody sees and would be referred back to
00:15:30.020 10 years from now. People would still remember it. Um, yet it's a woman, so nobody cares. Also the
00:15:36.340 fact that it's a homosexual thing, I think helps her. Uh, so, so Hill has three things going for her
00:15:41.080 that, that make this untouchable. Uh, even her, if her staffers, so the story's untouchable, but as far
00:15:46.320 as Hill's concerned, apparently, allegedly her staffers are not untouchable. Um, she's a, so she's a
00:15:52.620 woman, she's apparently bisexual and she's a Democrat. And this sets up a dynamic where she
00:15:59.680 can literally do anything she wants, especially in the area of sex, just whatever. It doesn't matter.
00:16:07.560 She could do what she wants. No one is ever going to say anything. She'll get away with it. Um,
00:16:12.380 it's just, it's just completely outrageous. And here's the thing, you know, either, either it's
00:16:23.960 true that it's inappropriate and wrong and even potentially assault for a person in position of
00:16:32.760 power to be involved in a sexual relationship with someone who's, who's underneath them, uh, not
00:16:38.220 literally, but, uh, you know, either that's wrong and appropriate, potentially assault or it's not.
00:16:45.860 And so you can't, well, you, you, we just can't do this. You make an exception for Katie Hills.
00:16:50.680 Ah, you know, whatever. Then, okay, well then you've waved your head and your hand and said,
00:16:57.200 whatever to, to all of these cases. You can't circle back around the next time there's a story
00:17:04.400 about a man doing something like this and say, Oh, look, it's the patriarchy. It's sexism. It's a
00:17:08.980 women are under attack. You just can't do that. I mean, you can do it physically. No one's going
00:17:13.860 to stop you, but you can't expect to be taken seriously when it's entire, when it becomes entirely
00:17:20.680 clear. And this has been, this has been my, my impression for a while now, a lot of people's
00:17:26.520 impression. The me too movement is more of an anti-male thing. It's, it's an ideological, it's about,
00:17:32.620 it's about smashing the patriarchy and all this nonsense. It's not really about protecting women
00:17:37.440 or about, it's certainly not about making, you know, taking a stand against sexual assault.
00:17:41.740 It's not about that because it's, and we know that because it's so damn selective
00:17:46.100 and it, and what the me too movement has done, they've just waved their magic wand and granted
00:17:53.780 clemency to all women. Women doesn't matter. You're all of you completely, uh, absolved.
00:18:01.880 It doesn't, it doesn't count. It doesn't matter. You can do whatever you want. This is only about
00:18:05.880 men. All right. Um, kind of a, an awkward transition here, I'm afraid, but a brand of
00:18:15.840 menstrual products. Well, I guess there really is no, there's no non-awkward seamless transition
00:18:21.940 from any subject to talking about menstrual products, but here we are a brand of menstrual
00:18:26.820 products. Um, the brand always, which is a good name for a brand of menstrual products. I suppose
00:18:32.640 they always work right. Better than a brand like called occasionally or something. I have to stop
00:18:38.700 riffing on menstrual products and just get to it. The point is this brand, uh, has on its packaging,
00:18:43.220 the Venus symbol, and it's the circle with a cross beneath it. This is a symbol that universally means
00:18:48.700 woman, which makes sense to have on your packaging, right? If you're, if it's a menstrual thing,
00:18:54.460 because, because, uh, it's a menstrual product. So you've got a symbol that represents people who
00:18:58.380 menstruate makes a lot of sense. You would think, well, trans activists, uh, were not happy about it
00:19:04.200 because, um, they, they came in, the trans activists did, and they made the point that sometimes
00:19:12.340 men menstruate just like sometimes polar bears fly. Sometimes squirrels do calculus. These things
00:19:20.180 happen. Anything's happened. There are, there are no rules. Science is a myth. And that's how it is.
00:19:27.920 Um, and Procter and Gamble, which owns the brand always, and is a big, massive, huge, scary
00:19:35.200 corporation. They, they own approximately every brand at the grocery store. Um, but they caved to
00:19:42.800 the complaints of these, of these gender confused individuals and said, okay, we'll take the symbol off.
00:19:47.960 And they did because an enormous multinational corporation was bullied into agreeing that
00:19:56.260 sometimes men get periods. Now there was a lot of talk of, of menstruating, um, men this weekend,
00:20:03.900 unfortunately, because period day also happened. There was the holiday period day, which is a thing.
00:20:11.000 I don't know if you, if you celebrate it, but I guess it's, we're supposed to celebrate periods or
00:20:15.540 something. Yet, um, the trans activists came barging in yet again, as they always do and made
00:20:21.580 the point that, that, that actually this should be about them because that's always their point.
00:20:25.820 Isn't it with anything? Their point is, Hey, you know what guys, this shit's really about me, isn't
00:20:29.960 it? No matter what we're doing, no matter what we're talking about, what the issue is, they come in
00:20:34.660 barreling in through the door. Hey, wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
00:20:38.020 Let's make this about me. And, uh, and they said that, uh, so Twitter was filled with a bunch of
00:20:45.400 people saying, Hey, if we're, if we're doing period day, remember men can get periods.
00:20:50.660 Now, let me give you an example of, uh, of one such tweet tweet, um, that I responded to,
00:20:57.020 because I happen to happen across this is just one example of someone just to give you an idea of
00:21:01.280 what people were saying. It says, um, hashtag national period day. Remember that
00:21:08.020 um, it says, uh, the person said, remember that trans women can get periods. Yes. Trans women
00:21:13.160 when speaking on the subject of periods, don't live, limit the conversation to cis women only,
00:21:18.440 um, uh, to cis women only because our trans sisters are experiencing the same and it's wrong to cut them
00:21:24.820 out. Now, this is important. I wanted to read that to you because you need to realize we're taught,
00:21:31.520 we're talking here about, and I know this can get confusing sometimes because all this gender stuff,
00:21:38.020 on the left is madness. None of it makes any sense. It's all nonsense. So it's easy to lose
00:21:42.160 track, but I want you to appreciate how insane this is. When someone on the left says men can get
00:21:48.500 periods, they could be talking about biological females who identify as men. And yes, that's true
00:21:57.140 that those people can get periods because they aren't really men. And that, and that fact,
00:22:02.780 that's kind of the thing that reveals that to you. That's, that's the giveaway is the fact that
00:22:10.360 they're having a period, which means they aren't men. If you find yourself in a situation where you're
00:22:16.580 having a period, it means you're not a man. It at least means that. So you could, that will clarify
00:22:25.460 that situation for you. Um, and your second clue that you're not a man is literally everything else
00:22:33.860 about you. Literally everything. But just to be clear, the left is also claiming that men,
00:22:46.420 biological males, actual men can have periods. That's what this tweet and a lot of people,
00:22:53.540 that's what they're saying. When they say trans women can get periods, what they mean is
00:22:58.400 biological males can menstruate. That is the claim. And this is a claim that is, is basically
00:23:09.140 mainstream now on the left, at least in the case that now maybe there are a lot of leftists who
00:23:14.140 won't go out of their way to go out and announce this. They're not going to go screaming it into a
00:23:18.500 bullhorn. Biological males can menstruate. They're not going to be screaming that into the bullhorn,
00:23:22.480 but, um, uh, uh, but they're also not going to deny it. They're not going to argue it.
00:23:32.780 Biological males can menstruate. Now I happened to get into a back and forth with this particular
00:23:38.060 person on Twitter who wrote this and they defended their assertion by saying, and I'm not kidding.
00:23:44.580 They said that, um, that, that biological males can menstruate because sometimes they get bloated and
00:23:51.680 they have stomach cramps. Not joking. That was the argument proving that biological males can
00:23:59.220 menstruate by saying, Oh, wait, what are you saying that you're saying that biological males don't get
00:24:04.560 stomach cramps, which is like saying that a dog is essentially the same as a tuna because both can swim.
00:24:14.060 Oh, you say a dog isn't a fish. Well, here's a picture of my dog swimming in our backyard pool.
00:24:19.920 Checkmate science denier.
00:24:24.960 Uh, it's, but what do you do? What, when it gets to this point where you have people sincerely claiming
00:24:35.240 the biological males can menstruate, um, what, what do you, what can, there's no argument you can present
00:24:43.840 because any argument that you do present is going to be grounded in reality. And what the left is now
00:24:53.840 saying is reality doesn't matter. It simply makes no difference what the actual reality is.
00:25:04.640 So what can you do? Uh, well, I'll tell you one thing we can't do is just ignore this
00:25:12.020 because, or, or treat it as a, as a sideshow or as an irrelevant issue.
00:25:18.400 The left is, they are, they are waging a war on reality itself. When I, that's why when I go to
00:25:27.600 colleges and I give talks, one of the talks I give is the war on reality. This is a war on reality.
00:25:32.260 That's why this matters. It's not just now, if this was 20 years ago, okay. And you had someone
00:25:37.680 saying biological males can menstruate, then yeah, you could, you could laugh that off and say, oh,
00:25:41.480 okay. Person's crazy. Uh, it's still crazy, but this is something that,
00:25:48.400 the left is at, they are trying to establish a culture where that kind of claim is accepted
00:25:54.860 as a, as perfectly true and normal. So they're going to, they're trying to break down reality
00:26:03.320 itself. Is that, is it worth fighting back against that? Yeah, I would say so. Because if we don't have
00:26:10.340 reality, if words don't mean anything, if there's no reality, if science doesn't mean anything, then I,
00:26:16.140 where do we go next? What's, what's the point of having any discussion? How do we have any
00:26:20.560 discussion if we don't have these reference points based in reality? Um, all right. I love this. I
00:26:31.280 gotta, I gotta mention it a few weeks ago. Uh, the greatest living director, Martin Scorsese,
00:26:36.600 a guy who's pushing, what is he? 80 over 80 now. I don't know, but he's still making cinematic
00:26:42.980 classics. He's been doing, he's been at it for 30 years or more, 40 years. Um, and, uh, and nobody
00:26:50.680 in Hollywood has a batting average like this guy. It really is remarkable. A few weeks ago, he came
00:26:55.240 out and said that Marvel movies are, are bad. Basically said they don't count as cinema. He
00:26:59.340 said they're, they're more like theme park rides. They're not really movies. Um, it's not real cinema.
00:27:04.300 And he's right about that. And, you know, it brought all the Marvel fans out to explain how
00:27:10.220 Martin Scorsese doesn't know what he's talking about. He's out of touch. You know, he, they've
00:27:15.460 got this movie, the Irishman coming out with the De Niro and Pacino and Pesci and basically all
00:27:20.480 every great actor that's ever been in a mob movie is going to be in this movie, the Irishman
00:27:23.960 that's coming out. It's got a 100% of Rotten Tomatoes. It's his, it's his best reviewed movie
00:27:28.520 ever. And this is a guy who's made nothing but classics almost. He's had a few misses
00:27:34.540 here and there. Um, but you had Marvel, Marvel fans saying, nah, that guy doesn't know anything.
00:27:39.580 What does he know? You know, he's, he's only made almost nothing but cinematic masterpieces
00:27:45.440 in his career. What does he know about cinema? So, uh, now I actually thought, I thought that,
00:27:51.520 that Martin Scorsese was giving Marvel too much credit because to say their theme parks makes
00:27:57.700 them sound at least somewhat fun in, in, in reality, they're not even that they're more,
00:28:03.140 they're commercials. Um, Marvel movies, if you're going to a Marvel movie, you should understand
00:28:07.080 you are sitting through a two and a half hour commercial. They're, they are toy commercials.
00:28:12.700 They exist for the most part to sell merchandise and they also exist to propagate themselves.
00:28:18.500 Uh, they exist so that another one can exist and that that's, they're not ever trying to really
00:28:23.840 tell a story or finish a story or do anything. It's just, we want to, the main goal is to sell
00:28:29.600 merchandise with the movies. And so how do we do that? Well, we need to keep making more and more
00:28:33.920 and more movies, which means the story can never end. There can never be resolution. There can never
00:28:37.700 be a real climax or anything like that in the movie. Um, uh, uh, it's just, it's not like a three
00:28:45.100 act thing. It's a typical, typical structure of a story. It's just one act that never, ever, ever,
00:28:51.340 ever ends. Um, well this weekend, Francis Ford Coppola, the man behind the greatest film of all
00:29:00.240 time, the Godfather, sure. I don't have to tell you he agreed with Scorsese. No big surprise. Only
00:29:05.960 he took it further. He said, um, in a, as he was doing a press conference or something, he said,
00:29:10.380 when Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he's right because we expect to
00:29:15.420 learn something from cinema. We expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge,
00:29:18.700 some information, some inspiration. Um, I don't know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the
00:29:23.980 same movie over and over again. Martin was kind when he said, it's not cinema. He didn't say it's
00:29:29.220 despicable, which I say it is despicable. Francis Ford Coppola said that Marvel movies are despicable.
00:29:38.320 I could not agree more. These movies are, they are despicable because they are actually the most
00:29:43.680 cynical movies you'll ever watch. Don't let the bright colors and the wise cracks and all that
00:29:48.820 stuff fool you. Uh, loud noises and the special effects. These are very extremely cynical movies.
00:29:55.480 Um, because it's the movie studio saying, we don't care about the audience. We don't respect your
00:30:01.200 intelligence. We don't respect you. We're just gonna, we don't, we don't respect the fact that
00:30:05.540 you're spending money on these tickets. And, uh, and, and so therefore deserve some sort of
00:30:10.140 actual cinematic experience. That's somewhat meaningful. No, we don't care about that.
00:30:15.560 We're just going to keep shoving the same tired, bland, played out goop down your gullets because
00:30:21.960 we know you'll swallow it and you'll pay the money and you'll come back again. That's what the movie
00:30:26.200 studio is saying. And you've got all these people that line up for the movies and say, yes, yes,
00:30:30.280 please, sir. Can I have another? It is despicable. Now I don't mean to appeal to authority here, but,
00:30:37.040 but, but, but come on, you've got the greatest living director and now the director of the
00:30:41.700 greatest film of all time, both saying that these movies are trash. So before you disagree,
00:30:47.460 ask yourself, do you know more about cinema than the greatest living film director and the director
00:30:54.140 of the greatest movie ever? Do you think you know more than they do? So before you disagree,
00:30:59.500 I like Marvel movies. Maybe there's, who knows? Like maybe these guys know a thing or two. Maybe they,
00:31:05.780 they might be onto something. Maybe it's worth considering, you know, if, if, if, if, if Joe Montana
00:31:15.560 and Tom Brady were sitting at a bar talking football and, and talking about what they consider
00:31:24.580 to be the worst football team in the league, would you feel comfortable coming into that conversation
00:31:32.060 and saying, Hey boys, hold on. You don't know what you're talking about. No, that, that team is
00:31:36.480 actually good. Let me explain why. I mean, it's look, they're not, they're not infallible. They
00:31:41.460 could be wrong, but these are guys who are the best experts you're going to find in this particular
00:31:49.640 field. And if this case football, you've got the two best quarterbacks ever. If they agree on some
00:31:56.520 football related topic, they're probably right. Maybe not definitely, but probably all I'm saying
00:32:03.440 is if Scorsese and Coppola agree on a movie related topic, I'm, I'm not going to disagree
00:32:10.440 because I think they, they probably know what they're talking about, but you don't even need
00:32:14.740 to take their word for it anyway, because, um, because it's, it's, it should be obvious. You know,
00:32:21.720 I, I, I've been saying this, I'm no movie expert. I've been saying this way before Scorsese and
00:32:26.000 Coppola chimed in that these movies are, it's just, they're garbage. They really are. We should
00:32:33.160 demand more. We should have higher standards and it's not, and please don't say, Oh, well,
00:32:38.720 sometimes it's fun to just turn your brain off and not every movie needs to be, uh, needs to be
00:32:42.560 thought provoking. Okay. Yeah, sure. Right. But, um, that's not an excuse. It, it, even if,
00:32:51.100 yeah, not every movie has to be really deep and thought provoking. That's true. Um, I think it's,
00:32:57.120 I think I honestly, I think most movies should be, I think that should be sort of the default state of
00:33:01.660 a movie because it is art and, uh, and there should be a real substantive point to it, but yeah,
00:33:08.360 not every movie has to be that way. Fine. Um, but if you're going to go the more lighthearted,
00:33:18.300 not even lighthearted, cause something could be lighthearted, but still have some depth to it. So
00:33:22.900 if you're going to go the shallower route, something that's pretty shallow, it could still
00:33:27.440 have creativity. It still have wit. Um, there could still be a real story being told.
00:33:34.460 The movie could still exist for some reason other than simply to, to sell merchandise and to propagate
00:33:41.580 itself, uh, like some sort of disease. So even in that case, there are movies I, you know, there,
00:33:49.440 there are movies I could think of that, that aren't particularly thoughtful, but, um, were still
00:33:54.840 enjoyable to watch and still had some creativity to them and some wit and some, you know, uniqueness.
00:34:00.360 And, and, and you could tell that they, you know, they exist mainly because the people involved in
00:34:05.780 the movie wanted to tell this story might not be the most important story in the world, but it's a
00:34:09.620 story and they wanted to tell it. So great. But when you have movies where that, that's the,
00:34:15.080 I guess this is my point. That's the main reason a movie should exist. Now, obviously it's got to
00:34:21.040 make money and, and, and especially the people in the movie studios, the producers and everything,
00:34:25.420 that's going to be the, their main concern. Fine. I get that. That's the reality,
00:34:29.100 but the P the directors and the actors, I mean, the main reason and the person who wrote the script
00:34:36.600 and all that, I think it should be clear from watching it that what motivated them was the
00:34:44.040 desire to tell this story. That's what makes Martin Scorsese such a brilliant, all-time great
00:34:51.520 director is that, yeah, he likes making money. Definitely. That's, of course he does. But you
00:34:58.060 also know when he puts a movie out, this is a story he really wanted to tell. Um, and so if he,
00:35:06.840 you know, so he might, he's got the movie silence that came out a few years ago. It's like three
00:35:11.380 hours long, this long ponderous movie about, uh, about Portuguese, uh, missionaries in, in 16th
00:35:19.880 century Japan. Um, and it wasn't a big blockbuster success, but he spent many years developing this
00:35:25.840 movie because it's just a story he wanted to tell. I just, I don't think with a Marvel movie,
00:35:31.820 you know, with when, when Iron Man 15 comes out, I just don't think that anyone involved
00:35:37.720 is really saying, Oh, we got to tell this, this 15th story about Iron Man where he saves the day
00:35:42.680 again, against some, once again, saves the day against some intergalactic, uh, guy who shows up
00:35:47.820 and go, whatever, you know, I don't think anyone is saying that. I think everyone, I think it's
00:35:53.840 wrote and routine and it's like, all right, let's, let's, let's jump on the, uh, the horse again
00:35:58.680 and, and, and make another billion bucks. All right. So I'm going to go through some emails
00:36:06.000 and, uh, these are exclusively emails from people challenging me on a number of subject
00:36:13.080 subjects that I talked about on the show. Of course I read and respond to other emails too.
00:36:17.840 Uh, I always enjoy emails that compliment me as well. Uh, maybe I'll pull up Pierre
00:36:23.720 Delecto. Maybe I should start writing them to myself. If you won't do it, then I'll do it.
00:36:27.640 Damn it. Anyway. Um, but, but I also appreciate the back and forth with people who listen
00:36:34.160 and write an email trying to pick apart my arguments. Uh, it, I, I, it keeps me sharp
00:36:39.940 relatively as least as sharp as I can get. So this is from Chad says, hi, madam police officer in Texas.
00:36:45.400 I enjoy your show. Let me begin by saying an open structure call is treated as a burglary. If
00:36:50.080 possible, we've tried to contain the structure on all sides. You were correct. When you said you
00:36:53.640 don't have all the information, I think it's very difficult for you to make a cut and dry decision
00:36:56.940 as to what should happen. I can only imagine that the guy was headed to the rear of the building and
00:37:01.940 saw a person at the window with a gun. I'm not going to say he's right or wrong because I don't
00:37:05.680 know all the facts and you shouldn't either. My own personal feeling is that the charge of murder
00:37:09.860 is a stretch being as he didn't set out to kill someone. I think manslaughter is more appropriate.
00:37:15.100 The other problem society faces is a lack of qualified applicants because of that people are being
00:37:18.880 hired. They're probably not qualified to do a, uh, to do to a lacks in hiring requirements.
00:37:23.220 That may be due to it not being worth it to be a police officer. That may be due to media coverage
00:37:28.300 or the fact that people are okay with cops being killed because quote, that's what they signed up
00:37:32.220 for. I hate when people say that because it cheapens our lives. Nobody says that about the
00:37:36.440 military. Nobody signs up to die. Okay, Chad, first as to this particular case, I agree that the charge
00:37:42.240 of murder might be a stretch, might be a bit ambitious though. Honestly, I thought that with the
00:37:47.140 Geiger case too, and she was convicted. So who knows? Um, uh, and, and, but I, I feel very confident
00:37:53.320 saying based on what we know, I don't know what's going to happen in court or whatever. I'm not going
00:37:57.240 to make any predictions there, but the officer was very much in the wrong. And I think we know that
00:38:02.500 because these facts are not in dispute. He shot an innocent woman, a law abiding woman in her home
00:38:09.320 through the window at two o'clock in the morning. Those are the basics facts of the case. Now, if
00:38:16.000 some other information comes out that says, Oh no, actually she was a wanted murderer and she was
00:38:21.720 breaking into someone's home and you know, that's not going to happen. So that basically we would need
00:38:25.960 to find out that this entire story as it's being reported is completely false and wrong. And every
00:38:30.380 single aspect of it is fake. I don't think that's the case, especially when the police department itself
00:38:36.640 is not saying that they're the ones who came out and said, this was wrong, this wrong, this was wrong.
00:38:41.320 He shouldn't have shot. So I think we can be pretty confident, um, in the basics of the case.
00:38:46.720 And, and so I think we could say that it was wrong at least now, as for the, that's what they signed up
00:38:53.100 for thing. I did make that argument, but not in reference to cops being killed. I'm not saying I'm
00:38:58.000 okay with cops being killed. And I certainly would never dismissively wave off the death of police
00:39:03.100 officers with a statement like that. I hope you would know that I, there, there, there are people
00:39:07.260 who do that. I wouldn't do that. I'm not, I'm not a, I'm not a psycho. Okay. Um, that would be crazy.
00:39:14.480 That wasn't my point. It would never be my point. And I agree that the anti-cop stuff in the media
00:39:19.700 is overboard and often dangerous. Um, and all this talk about police officers, you know, hunting down
00:39:26.180 black people and murdering them, uh, that talk is wrong. And once again, dangerous. And I've said
00:39:30.880 that many times, I have made that point myself many times. Um, I said again on Friday that I think
00:39:37.020 the racial angle in a lot of these cases is overplayed. Certainly in this case, I don't think
00:39:41.180 there's any reason to assume that there was any real racial angle to that. Even if the cop was white
00:39:46.100 and the victim was black, my only point with that's what they signed up for was just when it comes
00:39:50.960 to a certain amount of reasonable risk. So I was specifically and only taking issue with this
00:39:58.380 attitude that you encounter from some people that basically excuses almost any cop shooting.
00:40:05.800 If they can find some technicality, some way in which the person who was shot may have been by some
00:40:13.000 very low percentage chance, a risk. I gave the example of Daniel Shaver in Arizona. I think it's one
00:40:18.420 of the classic examples, tragic examples. The man shot and killed by cops while crawling on the
00:40:22.720 ground in a hotel hallway, begging for his life. He was shot and killed by three cops standing over
00:40:28.200 him 10 feet away, five feet away with their cup, with their guns trained directly on him. Now he went
00:40:33.540 and reached for his waistband because his pants were falling down. He was trying to pull them up. It was
00:40:36.880 just an instinctive thing. That's when they shot and killed him. Technically, yes, he moved his arm.
00:40:42.560 And so technically maybe, yeah, you're allowed to kill him. And so that's why these cops didn't end up
00:40:47.660 going to jail, even though I think they should have. I am taking issue with that particular attitude
00:40:53.140 where you're saying that, um, well, technically, you know, there's like a 0.05% chance that this guy's
00:41:01.060 actually a risk to you given, given the advantage you have over him, given the fact that he is clearly
00:41:06.440 making every attempt to submit and he's, he could not be more submissive. Um, uh, but there's still that
00:41:13.180 small tiny chance when he makes that slight movement of his hand. And so there are some
00:41:17.840 people who say, well, yeah, you know what, just, you can shoot him and, and okay, uh, better safe
00:41:23.220 than sorry. In that kind of scenario, I find that sort of logic to be deeply troubling. My point is
00:41:31.620 that the, the, the safety of police officers is of tantamount importance. Also, you know,
00:41:39.300 period end of the sentence. Also the safety of innocent civilians is also of tantamount importance.
00:41:48.580 And so we should not be putting the lives of police officers over that of innocent community
00:41:56.500 members, but we shouldn't be putting the community members over the police officers. So, you know,
00:42:00.460 I'm, I'm saying it's like equal footing here. So police officers' lives are very valuable.
00:42:04.700 The, the life of the woman who was killed in her home at 2 AM while she was playing video games with
00:42:10.340 her, with her nephew, her life was valuable too. And that police officer's life was not any more
00:42:15.260 valuable than hers and hers wasn't any more than him. That's my point. I mean, would you really take
00:42:19.880 issue with that? But if we're going to say that in some way, technically, maybe that police, that
00:42:26.260 shooting was, was justified, then I don't see how you could do that without, without, even if you don't
00:42:30.380 say it, I don't see how you could make that argument without essentially implying that her life is not
00:42:35.320 quite as valuable and important as his. Because yeah, maybe technically somehow in some obscure
00:42:42.020 minor, very small chance, she could have posed a threat to him. So just kill him just to be safe.
00:42:47.100 I get, that's the, that's my problem. This attitude of, well, kill the civilian just to be safe,
00:42:52.720 just in case. And I, and I know that no one is putting it exactly like that, but when you defend
00:42:58.360 things like the Daniel Shaver killing, or when you potentially defend things like this woman who
00:43:03.140 was shot in her home at 2 a.m. while playing video games with her nephew, even if you're not saying
00:43:07.300 kill them just to be safe, that is kind of what you're saying. And, and I'm, now when I say you,
00:43:14.200 I don't mean necessarily you specifically, I'm talking the universal you. Um, so that's what,
00:43:22.240 that's my, that's my problem. I, I, and I think when, um, you know,
00:43:28.360 right. And I got a lot of emails on this. So this, this is my one representative email that
00:43:34.180 I thought was reasonably written and posed. So I wanted to engage with it. But, um,
00:43:39.660 yes, as I said, there is, it is not true that there is an epidemic of cops going around killing
00:43:49.520 innocent people. That is, that is not the case. The majority of cops are good people and they're good
00:43:57.200 at their job and they're, and they're just, just like the majority of anyone, the majority of people
00:44:02.600 in any profession with the exception maybe of, of, you know, drug lords. Um, the majority of people
00:44:08.880 in any profession are, you know, they're just trying to do their job and, uh, and they're, they're not
00:44:13.260 all going to be saints. They're not all going to be anything, but, but they're trying to do their jobs
00:44:17.860 and they're trying to do it. Well, I think that's the case for most people. And that's the case for most
00:44:22.180 cops. So yes. However, um, when a civilian is gunned down unjustly by an agent of the state,
00:44:31.700 I don't care if it happens once a year or 10 times a year or a million times a year, whatever the,
00:44:38.240 the exact frequency, uh, is not the point when it happens, when it, whenever it happens,
00:44:46.240 that is a huge injustice. That is the exact opposite of what is supposed to be happening.
00:44:54.940 That is the exact opposite of the relationship that is supposed to be present between a citizen
00:45:01.700 and an agent of the state. And so when that happens, we need to look at it. We need to analyze it.
00:45:07.120 We need to be outraged by it because that person's life does matter. And, um, and, and we need to look
00:45:15.780 at what, what could have possibly led to that. And I think that sometimes, yeah, you are going to look
00:45:21.840 at, you know, are there general sort of attitudes present in relation to law enforcement on law
00:45:31.260 enforcement that might, um, provide a, an environment where, where these kinds of shootings
00:45:39.540 will happen. And I would say that maybe there is sometimes. So like I said, you know, I, I appreciate
00:45:46.940 the emails, but some of the emails I got were so over the top, you know, given the arguments that
00:45:52.180 I made, which were pretty mild, you know, if you listen to my, and I know this wasn't you,
00:45:57.980 but I'm talking to other people that sent emails. If you listen to, to my, what I said and came away
00:46:02.740 with, I'm anti-police or I hate police, which is a lot of the emails I got, then you just were not
00:46:08.060 paying attention at all because there's no way for an honest person who was paying attention to
00:46:12.340 interpret it that way. Just no possible way. I mean, come on. Or I have to assume that you
00:46:20.560 really don't care about the lives of these people who are killed unjustly by police. Not again, not
00:46:25.060 you, but other, the other emails I'd have to assume that that's the impression I got. I'm not even
00:46:32.840 reading those emails because they, they piss me off so much. I don't even know what I would say
00:46:37.640 on camera in response to them, but I, there are some people sent emails and it really seems like
00:46:42.260 they don't give a crap for them. It's just about the cop. The other person doesn't matter.
00:46:50.340 I despise that attitude. Just like I despise people on the other side who don't care about
00:46:55.500 the lives of police officers. I despise both attitudes. I think they're both horrible.
00:47:01.480 All right. Um, let's see. Okay. I spent more time on that than I thought. We'll do one more.
00:47:10.560 This is from Henry says, hi, Matt. I just listened to your podcast where you made the claim that every
00:47:15.980 person is a human and vice versa. Although I agree with your stance on abortion and I agree that a
00:47:19.920 baby in the womb is both a person and a human. I would have to disagree with that statement.
00:47:23.920 I've taught Bible studies on the Trinity in the past. And when I make the statement that the Trinity
00:47:27.580 consists of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, I always have to clarify that I'm not saying the
00:47:32.800 Trinity consists of three humans. Each member of the Trinity is a person because he is personal
00:47:36.920 and has the attribute of personhood. I understand this is not what you were talking about. So please
00:47:41.400 forgive me if I'm being too technical. Uh, I'm pretty sure Henry, I'd have to go back and listen
00:47:45.080 to it. I'm pretty sure I said that every human is a person and, uh, that this distinction between
00:47:49.940 human and person is ad hoc. It is an artificial invented distinction invented specifically to
00:47:55.880 justify abortion because there is no other time where a pro-abortion person would draw a distinction
00:48:00.920 between human and person. Uh, so every human is a person. That's my point. I didn't, I don't think
00:48:08.680 I said, and if I did, then I was, I was not phrasing it correctly. I don't think I said that every person
00:48:14.800 is a human because I agree with you. That's not true. That's not necessarily the case. There are ways
00:48:19.920 of understanding person that would not necessarily pertain to humans, though the word human always
00:48:25.380 pertains to people. The word people doesn't always pertain to humans. So kind of like every bourbon is a
00:48:30.380 whiskey, but not every whiskey is a bourbon. So every human is a person. Not every person is a
00:48:34.320 human. Um, you gave one example. Another one I would give is, uh, is, you know, in a sci-fi scenario,
00:48:40.780 if intelligent life ever landed on this planet and their UFOs and moved in and started living with us
00:48:46.120 all men in black or something, you, I think we would have to say that they are people. Um, they are
00:48:54.660 persons. They should be legally granted as, as, as conscious, sentient, uh, highly developed,
00:49:01.000 uh, uh, beings. They should be granted all the rights of people, but they're not human. Um,
00:49:10.400 so, and, and there are other examples. I mean, corporations, uh, legally count as, as people,
00:49:16.640 which, you know, that's a separate topic, but the point is legally, whether we're talking legally,
00:49:22.780 philosophically, morally, there could be scenarios, conceivable scenarios where a non-human is a
00:49:32.060 person or where, right. Yes. Okay. I phrased that right. I'm confusing myself, but there is no
00:49:40.220 scenario. There is no moral or philosophically justifiable scenario where a human could be
00:49:47.200 treated like not a person though. Of course, legally that is a distinction we draw, which has
00:49:56.200 enabled the murder of 60 million persons through abortion. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks
00:50:02.140 everybody for watching. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you
00:50:10.160 want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe
00:50:13.680 as well. We're available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to
00:50:19.160 check out the other Gelly Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles show, and the
00:50:23.680 Andrew Klavan show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Walsh show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate
00:50:28.500 producer, Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer, Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our
00:50:34.520 supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Donovan Fowler.
00:50:40.400 Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina. The Matt Walsh show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
00:50:46.920 If you want to delve the depths of leftist madness, head on over to the Michael Knowles show,
00:50:51.580 where we examine what's really going on beneath the surface of our politics and bask in the simple
00:50:57.060 joys of being right.