It wasn&#8217;t too long ago that Columbia University, like pretty much every school in the country, shut down in-person classes because of COVID. 
In fact, when Columbia&#8217;s current class of seniors began attending the school as freshmen four years ago, they had to log in to virtual classes — for their entire freshmen year. Supposedly, this was a once-in-a-lifetime event. Extreme times require extreme measures, those students were told. Never mind that those measures were pointless and did far more harm than good, of course.
Now, just a couple of years later, extreme times are back, and once again, lockdown measures are apparently required. Columbia has just shut down in-person classes yet again, in favor of mandatory &#8220;virtual learning,&#8221; for the last week of the semester. And those same Columbia seniors who had to attend online classes as freshmen are now being told to do it again as seniors.
But this time around, the reason that on-campus classes are suspended is that Columbia has been overrun by a mob of anti-Israel protesters who have occupied the lawn on campus and, in some cases, were captured on camera harassing and even explicitly <a href="https://x.com/emilykschrader/status/1782090351945085254">threatening</a> Jewish students with violence.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Protest B Roll" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3cS7qzsLC6Y?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The people occupying the lawn — most of them students — say they won&#8217;t leave until Columbia divests from &#8220;anything related to Israel.&#8221; And for some reason, Columbia didn&#8217;t immediately have these students arrested and expelled, which would have been very easy to do, and should have been done. It wasn’t, so the debacle continues. Other schools like NYU, the University of Mexico — and even &#8220;Cal Poly Humboldt&#8221; have seen similar protests.
At this rate, it seems unlikely that Columbia University&#8217;s campus will even exist in a few years. The university will probably become an online program like the University of Phoenix. The quad will transform into CHAZ 2.0, run by some theater student posing as a warlord, that&#8217;s where this is headed. The people running Columbia, like the rest of the Ivy League, very clearly don&#8217;t have any strong interest in teaching students. They&#8217;ve made it extremely clear that they&#8217;re easy to walk all over, so of course, this will keep happening.
At the same time — regardless of whether these administrators are cowards or simply incompetent or both — it&#8217;s clear that these protests serve a purpose that&#8217;s much bigger than Columbia University.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1354-here-s-the-proof-that-the-free-palestine-movement-is-just-blm-repackaged-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
The disruption, it just so happens, is dominating the national news cycle right on schedule: in the spring before a presidential election. Usually we see a race riot right around this time — and as I&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-media-nominates-their-new-george-floyd">discussed</a> before, there&#8217;s been no shortage of attempts by the media this year to incite them. But those attempts have all failed. And now, instead of race riots, right on cue, we have this insurgent movement to &#8220;Free Palestine.&#8221; Which is really just a race riot, repackaged, and draped in a green, black, and white flag.
These students, for the most part, don’t necessarily see this as a BLM reboot, but that’s what it is, and that’s what political forces much more powerful than the students are determined to turn it into. Those forces see an opportunity that really has very little to do with Israel or Gaza. And if they succeed, there will be a lot of violence and disruption this year that extends far beyond Columbia and Morningside Heights.
If you look around, it&#8217;s not hard to find hints that this is what&#8217;s going on. For example, take a look at what happened last night to pro-Hamas protesters who gathered outside the home of Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader. These are protesters who, for the most part, have had a free run of the campus of one of the top universities in the United States for several days. But watch what happens the moment they get near Schumer&#8217;s house:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Schumer Home Protests" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vmYKMg-RMTE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What&#8217;s amazing about this footage is that, as you might remember, Left-wing activists recently gathered outside the home of Supreme Court justices — including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — for weeks on end. That was part of an overt effort to intimidate the justices ahead of the Dobbs decision. But at no point were the demonstrators arrested for picketing in front of the justices&#8217; homes, even though it was a violation of federal law. The Biden administration refused to do anything about it. It was like a scene out of a third-world country.
The only guy they arrested literally called 911 and told them he wanted to murder Kavanaugh. That&#8217;s what it took to get some kind of police response.
But with Schumer, the rules are different. Hamas sympathizers and anti-Israel protesters can do what they want at NYU and Columbia and the University of Mexico and Cal Poly. The one thing they can&#8217;t do is disturb Chuck Schumer. So there are still rules, even amid all the anarchy. They just benefit the members of one political party.
As it happens, that&#8217;s not the only indication that what we&#8217;re seeing here is a kind of political operation. The Washington Examiner recently <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2974413/major-columbia-protest-organizers-left-wing-donors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> a deep-dive into the groups that have played a major role in promoting these Columbia protests. One of these groups is called &#8220;Jewish Voice for Peace&#8221; or JVP, which is a pro-Palestinian organization. They&#8217;ve helped with pro-Palestinian protests that have occurred not only at Columbia, but also at Harvard, UNC Chapel Hill, Ohio State, and Boston University. And, as the Examiner reports, JVP is &#8220;supported by far-left George Soros&#8217;s Open Society Network, and since 2016 has hauled in at least $650,000 from Soros-connected groups.&#8221;
Well, that&#8217;s interesting, especially if you were told that the protests at Columbia were entirely spontaneous — and entirely student-run, student-funded and student-organized. Now we&#8217;re learning that Soros-linked money is somehow involved in what&#8217;s happening at Columbia. As you probably remember, Soros-affiliated entities famously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/us/politics/george-soros-racial-justice-organizations.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poured</a> millions of dollars into so-called &#8220;racial justice initiatives&#8221; beginning four years ago, the last time we had national riots. These entities also helped elect quite a few D.A.s all over the country who promised to further BLM&#8217;s agenda by refusing to prosecute criminals. Now, according to the Examiner, Soros&#8217; Open Society Network is indirectly bankrolling some of what&#8217;s happening at Columbia, or at least the organizations involved in it.
And it gets worse. Democrats like Cori Bush and Ilhan Omar have blamed the physical violence and threatening rhetoric at these protests on so-called outside agitators. These are sitting members of Congress in the Democratic Party making that claim. They&#8217;re asserting that these agitators have nothing to do with the actual protest. But as the journalist Park MacDougald has <a href="https://x.com/hpmcd1/status/1782924163121856608" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed</a> out, one of the other key organizers of the Columbia protest — Students for Justice in Palestine, or SJP — is a subsidiary of the same nonprofit as one of these alleged &#8220;outside agitators,&#8221; a group called Within our Lifetimes, or WOL. The nonprofit is called the WESPAC Foundation.  In other words, there&#8217;s no daylight here between the &#8220;outside agitators&#8221; and the protesters. They are one and the same. And who funds the WESPAC Foundation, you ask? As MacDougald points out, WESPAC <a href="https://x.com/Scrollletter/status/1782838777838227669" target="_blank" rel="noopener">takes</a> a lot of money from the Tides Foundation, which in turn, has also received significant funding from the one and only George Soros.
As always, all roads lead back to Soros.
So this is starting to look like more than an isolated protest. It&#8217;s looking more like a broader and more general astroturfed effort to destabilize the country and stoke racial resentment, with the full endorsement of the Democratic Party.
There are some pretty clear signs that some of these students understand that, too.
Take the group called &#8220;Columbia University Apartheid Divest,&#8221; or CUAD. That&#8217;s a large coalition of more than 116 groups — including JVP — that are organizing the occupation at Columba Right now. Some of those groups include the &#8220;Columbia University Black Pre-Professional Society,&#8221; and &#8220;White Coats 4 Black Lives.&#8221;
You might be wondering why exactly a group of med students and other &#8220;pre-professionals&#8221; who support BLM also happen to be in lockstep in opposition to Israel and in support of Hamas. How exactly are these interests so perfectly aligned?
If you ask these students, they&#8217;ll probably tell you what Ilhan Omar&#8217;s daughter would tell you. She&#8217;s a student at Columbia who was just arrested for participating in this illegal encampment, and she&#8217;s also an avowed BLM activist. They would all say that they&#8217;re just really interested in defending allegedly marginalized people, wherever they may be — here or in Gaza. And that probably is what many of these students believe. They see anyone who&#8217;s non-white as a marginalized person. They see this as conflict between “whiteness” and marginalized people of color. For them, this is a struggle against white power structures and systemic racism and colonialism. Whiteness is the real villain here. Ask them and they will tell you this.
In reality does the war in Israel having anything to do with whiteness or systemic racism or anything like that? Of course not. But that’s how they see it. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t care. At least they certainly wouldn’t care as much as they do. There was no occupation of university campuses over the Ukraine invasion. That’s because, though leftist’s like to pretend they care about Ukraine, when it comes down to it both parties are equally white. There’s only so much sympathy they can really have for white people, even the ones in Ukraine.
But things start to get a little confusing when you look at other groups that have signed onto this collective at Columbia. They <a href="https://cuapartheiddivest.org/our-coalition">include</a> the &#8220;Columbia Queer Alliance,&#8221; the &#8220;Queer Graduate Collective,&#8221; and my personal favorite, the &#8220;Student Organization of Latines&#8221; — or “SOL.&#8221; Those are groups that, if they stepped foot in Gaza, would immediately be stoned to death. Hamas doesn&#8217;t exactly take kindly to the sorts of people who call themselves queer. So it&#8217;s a little harder to explain their membership in this coalition. But it becomes less difficult if you see these protests as many Democratic Party leaders see them — which is yet another opportunity for the Democratic Party and their various activist groups to terrorize millions of people and derail the national conversation in an election year.
It&#8217;s not exactly surprising that colleges, once again, are ground-zero for this effort. Universities have been fomenting this kind of radicalism for decades, and now they&#8217;re reaping exactly what they&#8217;ve been sowing. None of these universities deserve our sympathy. And for that matter, none of them deserve the benefit of student loan forgiveness programs, either. If anyone should pay for these students&#8217; loans, it&#8217;s the endowments of these schools, which are now so dysfunctional that it borders on comical.
Here for example are protesters late last night at Columbia, talking about dispersing into platoons so they&#8217;ll be harder to arrest:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Defend The Protest Encampment" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gVQSjamk0gU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
They&#8217;re comrades in arms, ready to fight for whatever the cause of the day is. As Aaron Sibarium points out, these protesters want to make it as difficult as possible for the police to remove them — so that when they are removed, they can claim to be victims. That is their overriding motivation here.
What they may not know, although it&#8217;s pretty obvious at this point, is that they&#8217;re not simply idiots. In an election year, they&#8217;re useful idiots. And in the next few months, the party that controls the government right now is going to take full advantage of them.

Pro-Palestinian Protests Continue At Columbia University In New York City

Here’s The Proof That The ‘Free Palestine’ Movement Is Just BLM Repackaged

Here's The Proof That The 'Free Palestine' Movement Is Just BLM Repackaged

Columbia University

Hamas

Israel

Matt Walsh

Protesters

Readers Pass

Another week, another batch of crazy court cases on “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/judged-by-matt-walsh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Judged by Matt Walsh</a>.” Episode 4 did not disappoint as it brought audiences two real cases of perceived injustices, this time in the form of stalkers and influencers. Buckle up, because this is going to be a bumpy ride.
First up, Nigel King sued his ex-girlfriend for $4,000 following a bad breakup. 
Walsh established that the couple met in the hospital where King worked after Perez initially came in as a patient. After disclosing that she had the flu when they met, Walsh wondered aloud what about her “feverish, sweaty state” King found “so appealing.”
The plaintiff went on to describe how Perez started visiting the hospital all the time after her initial visit, leading co-workers to warn him that he may have a “stalker.”
King said Perez “pretended she was sick” and would also “linger in the hallways.” Shortly after, King said the two bumped into each other at a bar, which Walsh implied was clearly a setup. He questioned King on why he chose to become romantically involved with a suspected stalker.
“What is a red flag if stalking isn&#8217;t a red flag?” Judge Walsh asked. “Does she need to be in the process of murdering you before you say, ‘Oh, this is a little bit troubling. I don&#8217;t want that.’”
King explained how he “hooked up” with Perez one time and then cut off contact with her. Then an anonymous person called the hospital to tell his manager that “sexual activity” had happened in the parking lot in an apparent attempt to get him fired. The plaintiff next showed Judge Walsh photos of his car after it was vandalized. He said Perez admitted to vandalizing the car.
Walsh’s first question for the defendant was, “Do you often go to hospitals looking to pick up men? Is that what a hospital is to you, like a singles club?”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/stalkers-influencers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH EPISODE 4 OF &#8216;JUDGED BY MATT WALSH&#8217; ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
The judge got Perez to admit that she was stalking King. The defendant said she was “triggered” when King stopped responding to her text messages. 
Walsh asked the defendant what she hoped to accomplish with her retaliation. “Clearly he’s not interested. So my question is, do you think you&#8217;ll convince him to be interested by making compelling arguments through text message?” he asked.
Perez explained how they continued hooking up and then presenting evidence of their continued relationship by showing the judge text messages between them. “Wow, you have an interesting way of cutting off contact with people,” Walsh told King.
Following deliberation, Walsh laid down the law. 
“You know, they say that people do crazy things when they&#8217;re in love, but I&#8217;ve found that it&#8217;s more accurate to say that people do crazy things when they&#8217;re crazy,” he began. “Love has really nothing to do with it. Your behavior through this whole ordeal is, of course, utterly indefensible.”
He told King that while it should be an open and shut case, his decision to remain involved with Perez was a mistake. 
“You know, there are something like 4 billion women in the world,” Walsh told the plaintiff. “And even if only a tiny fraction of them would be available to you, it still leaves you enough options that there&#8217;s no good reason for you to still have any contact with a woman who has gone out of her way repeatedly to make your life as difficult as you possibly can. I always wonder how it is that men end up with women like this.”
Watch the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/stalkers-influencers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">full episode</a> to find out how Judge Walsh ruled on the dispute. 
The next case was all about influencers. Plaintiff Elo Copeland describes herself as a “content creator” who made a video with the defendant, Kaylan Striggles, after meeting him at a content creator meetup.
“Don&#8217;t take this the wrong way, but I would rather be thrown into a vat of acid than go to a content creator meet up and be surrounded by content creators,” Judge Walsh noted before letting her continue. 
Copeland went on to claim that the pair collaborated on the video, she acted in it and did improv, and it received 19,000 views. But the defendant didn’t give her any of the money he earned after posting it on social media. 
The plaintiff said Striggles had paid her $25 to $50 for past videos with fewer views, but said she’s now seeking $1,000 because this video was their most viewed collaboration yet. Copeland said the video had been posted a year prior.
Judge Walsh confirmed that no formal financial agreement was made before making this video. 
Addressing Striggles, Walsh said, “According to Ms. Copeland, you are nothing but a low rent thief. Which, if true, would mean that you are just like 99% of people who call themselves content creators.”
The defendant insisted that as a content creator, he gets “millions of views.” 
Striggles said he made $1,700 on the video in question, which Walsh immediately questions and calls a “gross overestimation.” He responded by procuring the receipt from Meta.
After deliberating, Walsh handed down his judgment. 
Addressing Ms. Copeland, he said, “Let me explain a basic concept to you. If you want someone to pay you for the work you perform for them, you need to bring that up beforehand, not days after the work has already been completed. So what you generally do is you say, ‘This is how much I&#8217;d like to be paid for this work that I&#8217;m going to do.’”
Tune in next time for more real-life cases of petty arguments and fair judgment with the continuation of “JUDGED by Matt Walsh.” 
New episodes drop weekly on Tuesdays, exclusively on <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=dwplus&amp;utm_medium=paid&amp;utm_source=googlesearch&amp;utm_content=na_subscriptions&amp;mid=g&amp;cid=dailywire&amp;xid=0&amp;gad_source=1&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjw26KxBhBDEiwAu6KXtxSQh65y6d2QJeLcR61SOlA93QPzqrSD_6vJq8eUA9wtTy6kOBVSXRoC3CAQAvD_BwE" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire+</a>.

JUDGED by Matt Walsh – Ep. 4

‘JUDGED By Matt Walsh’ Ep. 4 Features A Hospital Stalker And Content Creators

DailyWire+

JUDGED by Matt Walsh

Daily Wire host Matt Walsh said Taylor Swift is “not a positive influence” while he and talk show host Piers Morgan debated the superstar’s dominance in the culture.
On Tuesday&#8217;s edition of “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs3UbPAIptI" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Piers Morgan Uncensored</a>,” Morgan and the host of “The Matt Walsh Show” podcast talked about Swift’s “brand of feminism,” with Morgan praising the singer as an “incredibly gifted singer-songwriter” who’s now more famous than the Beatles.
Walsh admitted he’s not “exactly a Taylor Swift scholar,” and said these days the “Blank Space” hitmaker is “one of the most famous people in the world” and the “most powerful, influential pop star by a mile.”
“There are many pop stars that are far more objectionable than her, and far more vulgar and objectionable,” the Daily Wire host explained. “I think, for the most part, what you get from Taylor Swift, it’s not good…it’s just kind of vapid and shallow and silly.”
“The most relevant criticism of her is that she’s 34,” he added “She’s a 34-year-old woman still singing about her high school-level relationship problems. So, this appears to be a 34-year-old woman who hasn’t grown up much. And hasn’t grown as a person or an artist.
Walsh noted how Swift even has a song on her new album The Tortured Poets Department, called “So High School,” where he said she’s “actually comparing her current relationships to being in high school.”
“So, this is someone kind of in a state of arrested development,” he added. “And I think that there are a lot of people in the West who struggle with that same condition. So, she’s not a positive influence as far as that goes.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Generally, I think there are many pop stars that are far more vulgar and objectionable than her … but she is someone who is in a kind of a state of arrested development.”<a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MattWalshBlog</a> discussing Taylor Swift with <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@piersmorgan</a>. <a href="https://t.co/tcnsO19Dpl">pic.twitter.com/tcnsO19Dpl</a>
&mdash; Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1782853726593773848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Morgan disagreed with the Daily Wire host and said that the “best stuff” from “all great singer/songwriters” comes from “the negative stuff in their life.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1713635892817000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3lXMk_jhNQC8Fngje8e8XV">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Walsh clarified that he doesn’t see anything wrong with artists talking about “negative” things in their lives, but suggested what Swift was doing was different.
“She doesn’t appear to be saying anything interesting or insightful about it [the struggles and sorrows in her life],” Walsh said. “If there is a Swift song out there where she offered some real, beautiful, poetic insight to any of these issues I haven’t heard it.”
“I would love to hear what it is,” he added. “But from what I hear, it’s just the same thing over and over again, and that’s part of the problem.”
Morgan also asked Walsh about his new comedy court drama series “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/judged-by-matt-walsh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JUDGED by Matt Walsh</a>,” which is now streaming on DailyWire+.
“It’s a very serious legal courtroom show,” Walsh said. “This is a place where we take on very serious cases, and as I’ve christened myself, I am now America’s — if not foremost legal authority — at least foremost legal expert.”

Matt Walsh/Piers Morgan/Taylor Swift

‘Not A Positive Influence’: Matt Walsh, Piers Morgan Debate Taylor Swift’s Cultural Dominance

'Not A Positive Influence': Matt Walsh, Piers Morgan Debate Taylor Swift's Cultural Dominance

Celebrities

Entertainment

Piers Morgan

Taylor Swift

After my film &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What is a Woman?</a>&#8221; became one of the most-watched documentaries of all-time, there were a couple of different responses that Leftists could have had. The easiest response would have been to simply answer the question in the title. 
Trans activists, the media, and politicians had the opportunity to provide a coherent, non-circular definition for the word &#8220;woman&#8221; — and then they would have immediately won the argument. That&#8217;s all they had to do. But, of course, trans ideology can&#8217;t provide a coherent definition of the word &#8220;woman,&#8221; so they refused to do it when I interviewed several of them for the film. And they haven&#8217;t been able to do it in the nearly two years since.
Instead, as I&#8217;ve discussed before, the Left lied about the film. They accused me of &#8220;transphobia&#8221; for allowing trans activists to explain — or rather, fail to explain — what they believe. But they didn&#8217;t stop there. On top of all the lies, one of the most powerful technology platforms in the county embarked on an effort to prevent me from speaking about the film. This platform, called Eventbrite, also tried to shut down screenings of the documentary. They claimed any event screening the film, or discussing it, violated their &#8220;Hateful Events Policy.&#8221; 
If you&#8217;re not familiar with Eventbrite, it controls roughly 50% of the event management and registration market. They&#8217;re hard to avoid, even if you want to. And on at least seven occasions, they canceled events involving &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What is a Woman?</a>&#8220;, often costing event organizers like YAF thousands of dollars.
At the time, it seemed like just another example of a Left-wing company silencing political dissent. Stop me if you&#8217;ve heard that one before.
But the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation decided to look deeper into what&#8217;s going on. Under the leadership of ranking member Ted Cruz (R-TX), the committee launched a congressional investigation into several instances in which online service providers canceled services for conservative organizations and speakers. The committee probed Eventbrite, and many other companies like it, to understand what was going on internally at these companies when they made these decisions to censor conservatives. And today, we can bring you the results of that investigation, exclusively.
Here&#8217;s the topline finding from their report, which outlines the Left&#8217;s strategy for attacking the freedom of speech and association: 
<blockquote>This investigation revealed that Online Service Providers are following a new playbook for silencing conservatives that leftist organizations — including the notoriously biased Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL)—concocted: &#8216;removing infrastructure services&#8217; that conservative organizations &#8216;need to operate&#8217; by weaponizing their terms of service.</blockquote>
In other words, what Eventbrite did to &#8220;What is a Woman?&#8221; is part of a much larger effort to deplatform anyone who disagrees with the Left, particularly on the issue of transgenderism. This is their answer to me — as well as to Libs of TikTok, swimmer Riley Gaines, and nonprofits like the Independent Women&#8217;s Forum. They can&#8217;t debate us. They have to shut us down and prevent us from speaking.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1353-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
The committee&#8217;s investigation exposes this effort, in great detail, for the total fraud that it is. Publicly, companies like Eventbrite will claim that they&#8217;re combating &#8220;hate&#8221; and &#8220;disinformation&#8221; when they shut down events featuring my film, for example. But in reality, the committee found, no one at Eventbrite even watched &#8220;What is a Woman?&#8221; before they decided to ban all events themed around the film.
As the report states: 
<blockquote>Eventbrite admitted to the Committee that no one involved in the decision watched What Is a Woman? film before cancelling the events. Eventbrite could not even identify a single timestamp in the trailer that it deemed to violate the Eventbrite Community Guidelines. According to Eventbrite: &#8216;[t]he overall tone and message of the all-encompassing trailer, in combination with Matt Walsh’s related public statements, helped determine the removals—not any individual timestamp.&#8217;</blockquote>
To restate, because this really is incredible: A Big Tech platform banned events involving my film, saying these events violated their &#8220;hateful events policy,&#8221; without even watching the film.
According to the committee, Eventbrite has a “Trust and Safety Team” that consists of at least 12 full-time employees who review every single case. Eventbrite describes these employees as &#8220;experts.&#8221; Experts in what? What are their qualifications? That’s never explained. But they certainly aren’t experts in the film because none of these &#8220;experts&#8221; saw the film that they wanted to ban. Instead, they looked at non-specific parts of the trailer, and my public statements. 
So let&#8217;s review. Here&#8217;s the first 45 seconds or so of the trailer for &#8220;What is a Woman?&#8221;, which is probably more than Eventbrite&#8217;s experts watched:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 WIAW Trailer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5FH0NaDVThw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That is the alleged &#8220;hateful content&#8221; that, apparently, Eventbrite finds disqualifying. No one can use Eventbrite to show the film or even discuss it. It&#8217;s not exactly convincing. So, maybe to cover their bases, Eventbrite told the committee that they banned my events for a few other reasons. Specifically, they said my public statements were hateful.
What public statements, exactly? Eventbrite provided three examples — all of them are from before the film was released. 
The first example is my appearance on a Dr. Phil episode entitled &#8220;The Gender Pronoun Debate,&#8221; from January 19, 2022. The whole episode runs for the better part of an hour, and again, there&#8217;s basically no chance that Eventbrite&#8217;s experts watched it. But here&#8217;s a representative part:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Dr Phil What Is A Woman" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v5it2lACi60?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
According to Eventbrite, the fact that I used the words &#8220;mental illness,&#8221; &#8220;charade,&#8221; and &#8220;theatrical production&#8221; to describe men who pretend to be women, and vice versa, is evidence that I&#8217;m a very hateful person, and I shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to host events.
Additionally, Eventbrite says that in a May 2021 episode of this show, I discussed gender surgeries being performed on children — including double mastectomies — as morally akin to rape and child molestation. Apparently, that&#8217;s hateful. If you have a problem with child butchery, then Eventbrite won&#8217;t allow you to have a platform. They’re right, by the way. It is hateful. I do hate this kind of abuse against children.
There was one other objection that Eventbrite made, concerning the children&#8217;s book I wrote called &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Johnny-Walrus-Matt-Walsh/dp/1956007059" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Johnny The Walrus</a>.&#8221; Of course, they didn&#8217;t actually read this book, anymore than they watched my film. I can’t blame them though. The book is probably above their reading level. But it was featured at the beginning of my appearance on the Dr. Phil show, which is how I assume they heard about it. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Johnny The Walrus" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_0cGSzj-R7o?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the book, as you probably know, is about a little boy who pretends to be a walrus. People encourage him to start changing his appearance and getting surgery to transform into a walrus. And the book takes the position that this is a bad idea. It teaches that human children should recognize that they are human children, not walruses. But to Eventbrite, this is apparently a problem. They told the committee that it&#8217;s hate, so it’s bad.
The funny thing is that, as the committee&#8217;s investigation makes clear, Eventbrite doesn&#8217;t really know what their hateful conduct policy even says. Either that or they lied to the committee. 
As the report reads: 
<blockquote>On February 27—days before the March 1 event—Eventbrite removed the event’s page from its website and notified the organizer that it had done so because the event violated the Eventbrite Community Guidelines. Eventbrite told the Committee that it sends a standard notification when removing an event for violating its Hateful Events Policy. As reflected in the figure below, however, in the version Eventbrite sent to the organizers of the Stanford event, Eventbrite directly stated that the problem with the Matt Walsh event was that it &#8216;expresse[d] views&#8217; that violated the Eventbrite Terms of Service.</blockquote>
In other words, Eventbrite&#8217;s standard &#8220;Hateful Events Policy&#8221; doesn&#8217;t say anything about prohibiting certain views. They wrote up a custom notification just for one of my events, and then apparently forgot about it. This kind of ad hoc reasoning is extremely common on the Left and particularly among online service providers. It&#8217;s yet another symptom of an ideology without any real principles.
As I alluded to earlier, of course, this isn&#8217;t just affecting me. The committee outlines numerous other instances of online platforms shutting down events for conservatives, including a November 2023 event featuring the swimmer Riley Gaines at UC Davis. 
The school&#8217;s College Republicans worked with Eventbrite to set up a registration page so that students could sign up and attend for free. But in late November, Eventbrite canceled the whole thing. They notified the organizers that events cannot espouse hatred or harass anyone based on a series of characteristics, including sexual orientation, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, religion, ethnicity, or disability. Notably, Eventbrite doesn&#8217;t prohibit hatred based on &#8220;sex discrimination,&#8221; so it&#8217;s okay to deride women and pretend they don&#8217;t exist. Trans activists are free to do that all they want.
But Riley Gaines was shut down — not because of anything on her event page, but because she previously made social media posts affirming that biology is real. One of the posts cited by Eventbrite is an October 10, 2023, post from Gaines, in which she says:
<blockquote>Women are not menstruators, bleeders, chestfeeders, cervix-havers, uterus-owners, egg-producers, or people with birthing capacity. Women are just women. Adult human females.</blockquote>
According to Eventbrite, which apparently makes up its standards as it goes, that&#8217;s hateful conduct.
Along those lines, the committee investigated the communications platform Slack for canceling the workspace of Libs of TikTok. Slack informed the committee: 
<blockquote>[w]hat makes [Libs of TikTok] problematic is that Libs of TikTok has a specific audience, and they are taking this information and posting it to that specific audience so that everyone in that audience sees it at the same time.</blockquote>
Now, I&#8217;ve read that explanation about five times, and it still doesn&#8217;t make any sense. But as best I can tell, they&#8217;re admitting that nothing Libs of TikTok said was objectionable. And really, it couldn&#8217;t be; she&#8217;s just reposting deranged content from Leftists. So instead of making any factual argument, Slack apparently complains that a lot of people are seeing the factual information provided by Libs of TikTok, and they&#8217;re becoming hateful as a result. Somehow this alleged audience reaction makes Libs of TikTok&#8217;s conduct a violation of Slack&#8217;s policies against &#8220;inciting hatred.&#8221;
She didn&#8217;t direct anyone to engage in any hateful conduct. She simply posted the truth about what&#8217;s happening. And that&#8217;s not allowed anymore.
This is a standard that obviously, if the Left were to employ against itself, would result in the immediate deplatforming of the Washington Post, pretty much every trans activist who&#8217;s ever used social media, the entirety of CNN and MSNBC and the rest of the legacy media. But it&#8217;s not a real standard and it&#8217;s not meant to be administered fairly. Instead, as the committee notes, this standard was essentially invented by the ADL, the SPLC, and other well-funded Left-wing activist groups. 
<blockquote>Although Slack did not specifically point to them with regard to its Libs of TikTok investigation, notably, the left-wing SPLC has described Libs of TikTok as an &#8216;extremist&#8217; account and ADL labeled Libs of TikTok/Chaya Raichik as an &#8216;extremist&#8217; in its &#8216;Glossary of Extremism.&#8217;</blockquote>
The same designation applies to me. Quoting again from the report: 
<blockquote>Eventbrite did not say that it relied on ADL in deciding to cancel the What Is a Woman? events, but notably ADL—which Eventbrite’s Trust and Safety Team generally relies on as a source—has labeled Matt Walsh as an &#8216;extremist commentator.&#8217;</blockquote>
This is the strategy that&#8217;s been unearthed by this congressional committee. Motivated in part by guidance from Left-wing activist groups, large online tech platforms are doing everything they can to make sure conservatives can&#8217;t communicate or stay in business. There are several other examples. For instance, the report says that the Independent Women&#8217;s Forum, or IWF, was kicked off the fundraising platform Bonterra for defending women’s rights. Bonterra categorized IWF as some sort of &#8220;anti-LGBT&#8221; outfit, whatever that means, all because they believe biology is real. Therefore, they&#8217;re not allowed to raise money, I guess.
In its report, the committee suggests that this situation could be resolved by legislation — or at least, addressed in some way by legislation. But the ideal resolution, as the committee suggests in its conclusion, is for new online service providers to flood the market and offer an alternative. That is the only response to this insanity that&#8217;s sustainable — and it&#8217;s a very workable solution.
Because of this committee&#8217;s investigation, we know that the companies censoring conservatives are really staffed with complete, bumbling morons who have no idea what they&#8217;re doing. That means they&#8217;re powerful, yes, but they&#8217;re also vulnerable. Now it&#8217;s time to replace them before they silence us.

Insider Investigation Reveals The Absurd Details Behind Eventbrite’s Decision To Ban Me From Its Platform

Insider Investigation Reveals The Absurd Details Behind Eventbrite's Decision To Ban Me From Its Platform

Big Tech

Opinion

Riley Gaines

Social Media Censorship

What Is A Woman

Republican Senator Ted Cruz says the secret tool used by the tech industry to censor conservative voices is online service providers, which are systematically “removing infrastructure services that conservative organizations need to operate,” he tells The Daily Wire. 
The Texas Republican says this new breed of censorship is “far less visible” to the public than similar actions taken by platforms such as Facebook, but “every bit as problematic.” An investigation carried out by the Senate Commerce Committee identified companies such as Eventbrite and Slack that have withheld their widely used services from conservatives for political reasons.
“This is a strategy, and it&#8217;s a strategy they&#8217;re deliberately deploying to go after conservatives and silence them,” explained Cruz, whose <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/04/Commerce_HowOnlineServiceProviders_Report-for-Daily-Wire.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report was obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire</a>.
Cruz’s investigation honed in on Eventbrite’s treatment of events that were centered around “What is a Woman?”, the documentary by Daily Wire host Matt Walsh. The event company, which controls nearly half of the online event management market, claimed mere screenings of the film violated their Hateful Events Policy, and yanked pages for events across the country from its platform. 
Though groups were given only broad statements about why their access to Eventbrite was revoked, Cruz’s committee found that action was taken even though nobody at the company even bothered to watch the film. 
“Eventbrite said that its decision to cancel the “What is a Woman?” event was based in a large part on their objection to the film itself,” Cruz said. “But then they couldn&#8217;t identify anything with the film that violated its terms of service.”
“They canceled the event without watching the movie,” Cruz explained, calling it “brazen abuse of power” that’s carried out in “an explicitly ideological leftist way to silence conservative voices while not silencing those voices on the left.”
Eventbrite also revoked its services from an event on “Protecting Women’s Sports” that featured Riley Gaines, an outspoken female athlete who speaks out against allowing men to participate in women’s sports. Eventbrite, Cruz discovered, based its decision on social media posts by Gaines, chiefly one in which she stated, “real women … lack a Y chromosome.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here’s why Eventbrite canceled seven “What Is a Woman?” events: <a href="https://t.co/wFPF7kA0f6">pic.twitter.com/wFPF7kA0f6</a>
&mdash; The Matt Walsh Show (@MattWalshShow) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshShow/status/1782868691069047220?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz also found that Slack, a communication platform used by companies across the country, revoked access to Libs of TikTok over factual statements it posted to social media that Slack says “incite hatred.” One of the posts from Libs of TikTok cited by Slack stated that Boston Children’s Hospital was “offering gender-affirming hysterectomies for young girls,” which although a statement of fact, generated significant anger towards the hospital. 
Slack told the Committee that “what makes [Libs of TikTok] problematic is that Libs of TikTok has a specific audience, and they are taking this information and posting it to that specific audience so that everyone in that audience sees it at the same time.”
“Understand what they&#8217;re saying: They&#8217;re saying the primary concern is that Libs of TikTok&#8217;s posts are read by a conservative audience,” Cruz explained. “They&#8217;re not even claiming to be upset with Libs of TikTok’s posts, most of which are retweets of posts from leftists. They&#8217;re just saying it&#8217;s objectionable that you actually have conservatives reading or watching what you&#8217;re putting out.”
Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik said that her team used Slack daily, and that its abrupt removal of services was “very difficult” for the company to deal with. Not only did it need to scramble to find a new way to communicate, but it lost all previous communications — without prior notification, and without any opportunity to appeal. 
The report concludes that the termination of service is often disruptive for conservative organizations — when Eventbrite canceled a Stanford University screening of “What Is A Woman?”, 600 students had already registered for tickets to the event. The entire infrastructure for attending the event was built through Eventbrite, and access was revoked just days before it took place, derailing it. 
Matt Walsh, whose documentary film was at the center of Eventbrite&#8217;s actions, says Cruz’s investigation confirms long-held suspicions from conservatives.
“Conservatives have long suspected they’re being deplatformed for fraudulent, politically motivated reasons,” Walsh said on Thursday. “This congressional investigation confirms it.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
EXCLUSIVE: A lengthy congressional investigation led by <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenTedCruz</a> just exposed the deranged lies of several online services that deplatformed <a href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@libsoftiktok</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Riley_Gaines_?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Riley_Gaines_</a>, and me. 🧵
&mdash; Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1782868905918119981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz’s report also found that this sort of action is only being levied against conservative groups. While Libs of TikTok no longer has access to Slack’s services, the committee found that there is still an active Slack account for groups such as Antifa and Crimethinc, a group that puts out step-by-step guides for how to commit crimes. 
And Eventbrite since canceling the events for “What Is A Woman?” and Gaines has platformed events celebrating the Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel.
“Eventbrite is perfectly happy to host them — they see no conflict with their &#8216;hateful events policy&#8217; having such rabid anti-Semitic, frankly, pro-violence content,” Cruz said. “But on the other hand, Matt Walsh is clearly beyond the pale.”

MixCollage-23-Apr-2024-01-09-PM-1005

EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Exposes The Left’s Newest Strategy For Censoring Conservatives

Censorship

Ted Cruz

Here&#8217;s a statistic that, if you have a job in corporate America, may be the single least surprising piece of information you&#8217;ll hear all year.
It turns out that every single one of the Fortune 100 companies — 100% of them — has made a public <a href="https://www.hrdive.com/news/2022-fortune-companies-dei/627651/">commitment</a> to DEI on their website. There isn&#8217;t a single outlier in the top 100 companies in this country. Chris Rufo looked into this, and he found that they all have a stock DEI page. Whether you go to Amazon or Target or Dell or Verizon or Home Depot, or banks or insurance companies or anywhere else, you&#8217;ll find the same platitudes — boilerplate about the importance of the alphabet people, parental leave for birthing folks, outreach to historically black colleges, and so on.
This total uniformity took hold relatively quickly, within just the last few years. Publicly, the explanation for this change is that all of these companies are suddenly very concerned about racial justice. They&#8217;re upset about George Floyd and so on. But privately, there&#8217;s another very clear reason for it. The leadership of all of these companies understand very well that if they stop practicing DEI — if they, say, start hiring all of their employees based on merit instead of skin color — then the federal government will try to destroy them.
This is a dynamic that normally plays out behind the scenes, away from public scrutiny. But this week, in one very dramatic case, it spilled out into the open. The convenience store chain Sheetz, which has more than 700 locations all over the country, was just sued by the Biden administration after they rejected the federal government&#8217;s attempt to shake them down with a settlement. What was Sheetz&#8217;s crime, you ask? Did they sell bad gasoline? Poisoned hot dogs? Did their name violate communications decency laws?
According to the Biden administration, Sheetz broke the law by refusing to hire applicants who failed a criminal background check. Apparently, the Biden administration believes this is a racist policy because many of the people who fail these background checks are nonwhite. And to be clear, that&#8217;s the entire accusation. The Biden administration is not claiming that Sheetz intentionally discriminated against anyone on the basis of race, or any other legally protected characteristic. They&#8217;re not claiming that Sheetz used these background checks as part of a racist white supremacist scheme.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1352-biden-administration-declares-that-criminal-background-checks-are-racist-against-black-people-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
Instead, the Biden administration is using a theory of discrimination known as &#8220;disparate impact,&#8221; which was enshrined into civil rights law many years ago. Under this theory, a lack of discriminatory intent doesn&#8217;t matter. All the government has to show is that a policy disproportionately affects members of certain racial groups, without a clear business purpose, in a manner that could reasonably be avoided.
In a moment, I&#8217;ll get into the lawsuit, and I&#8217;ll explain why it&#8217;s a complete farce, even if you buy into the whole &#8220;disparate impact&#8221; theory.
First, however, I want to contrast two local news reports about what&#8217;s happening to Sheetz. The first one is from WCNC in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the second one is from CBS 17 in Durham. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Sheetz Lawsuit" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OMATs4CZbSg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You&#8217;ll notice that the CBS News report doesn&#8217;t even mention what Sheetz is accused of doing, really. They don&#8217;t talk about the background checks at all. They just lead you to believe that Sheetz is accused of discriminating against &#8220;black, Native American and multiracial&#8221; people, with no context whatsoever.
So maybe you&#8217;re starting to see how the shakedown works. The federal government shows up to a major corporation. They accuse them of racism based on no evidence whatsoever. And then they demand millions of dollars, including back pay for a bunch of employees. And if the company doesn&#8217;t comply, then the administration sues them, and the media basically accuses the company of racism. This is why many companies choose to head off the whole problem in the first place, by openly discriminating against white people. If you do that, then the Biden administration won&#8217;t touch you.
Let&#8217;s get into the specifics of the case because that&#8217;s the only way to truly understand how insane this is.
Within the last few months, a couple of job applicants at Sheetz filed complaints with the E.E.O.C., saying they&#8217;ve been discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And the E.E.O.C., which is a federal agency, agreed with them. Here&#8217;s what the Biden administration wrote in their lawsuit:
<blockquote>[Sheetz] committed a continuing, companywide practice in violation of Title VII with respect to a class of Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial job applicants who did not pass [Sheetz&#8217;s] criminal justice history screening by failing to hire them for all positions because of race. &#8230; For instance, Black job applicants have failed Defendants’ criminal justice history screening, and consequently are denied employment, at a rate exceeding approximately 14.5%, while White job applicants have failed Defendants’ criminal justice history screening, and consequently are denied employment, at a rate of under approximately 8%.</blockquote>
The complaint notes that the number of Indians and multiracial applicants who are denied on this basis is roughly the same.
A few points here. First, given what we know about black crime rates, these numbers are actually a lot closer than you&#8217;d expect. Nationally, according to FBI data, black people <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/liberty-matters/2024-02-13-systemic-racism-in-crime-do-blacks-commit-more-crimes-than-whites" target="_blank" rel="noopener">make up</a> more than 26% of total arrests, and the imprisonment rate for black Americans is over five times the rate for whites. But the Sheetz data only shows a disparity of around 7%. And according to the EEOC, Sheetz is looking at both convictions as well as arrests when it runs its background checks.
More importantly, notice what&#8217;s being conflated here. The complaint states that Sheetz is failing to hire these applicants &#8220;because of race.&#8221; But what they&#8217;re really saying is that Sheetz isn&#8217;t hiring applicants who failed a criminal background check. Any reasonable person can see that those are two very different rationales. And indeed, on its website, the E.E.O.C. makes this distinction clear. <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">They state:</a>
<blockquote>The lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by race when making hiring decisions.</blockquote>
This is the sort of madness that the legal theory of &#8220;disparate impact&#8221; breeds. The Left knows that it can&#8217;t find any examples of actual direct discrimination against black people in this country anymore — and certainly not at Sheetz. So instead, the Left has invented this notion of disparate impact to create discrimination where it doesn&#8217;t really exist. The problem is that literally everything — every policy, every rule, every standard, in every context — will have a &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; The impact felt by any individual or group will vary according to their situation. If we cannot have standards that create a disparate impact, then we cannot have any standards at all. Which of course is the point.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Supposedly, there are limits to this legal theory of &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; The DOJ lists these <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#C" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exceptions</a> on its website. For example, it&#8217;s acceptable to have a policy that yields a &#8220;disparate impact&#8221; — if the policy is &#8220;important&#8221; and justified by the organization&#8217;s mission. This is an exception that clearly applies to this situation. There is a blindingly obvious reason why a convenience store wouldn&#8217;t want to hire criminals: They don&#8217;t want to get robbed. This is a point that should not need any elaboration whatsoever in a sane society.
But we don&#8217;t live in a sane society anymore, so I will elaborate. Also, it&#8217;s an excuse to show one of the best videos to come out of Georgia this year. This is footage of a robbery at a convenience store that may be the single worst inside job ever recorded on camera. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Gas Station Clerk Robbed" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lUUAZx374-c?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;It&#8217;s unclear if the robber&#8217;s fist actually connected to Patel&#8217;s face.&#8221; That&#8217;s the polite way of putting it. It takes the cops a little while but they eventually blew the whole scheme wide open — mainly because the accomplice was hanging out right outside the store when they arrived, and cash started falling out of his pocket when they questioned him.
In any event, the point is that if this clerk applies to Sheetz, they should be able to reject him because of his criminal history. His ethnicity does not matter. The fact he&#8217;s a criminal matters. Convenience stores get robbed all the time — including by their own employees. It&#8217;s clearly &#8220;important&#8221; to the business of a convenience store to root out criminals.
I read the entire complaint from the Biden administration, and I couldn&#8217;t find a single argument to the contrary. Instead, they fault Sheetz for failing to contact applicants to request additional information after they fail their criminal background checks. The Biden administration doesn&#8217;t say what &#8220;additional information&#8221; might be relevant, but they say that Sheetz is racist because they don&#8217;t request it. Additionally, the Biden administration faults Sheetz for failing to name the &#8220;specific condition&#8221; that&#8217;s the basis for their decision, when applicants have multiple criminal convictions. And apparently, Sheetz doesn&#8217;t have a whole committee making these decisions, nor is there a &#8220;procedure&#8221; for appeals.
None of this is remotely relevant to racism, nor does it disprove the obvious fact that hiring criminals is a bad idea for a convenience store. So it doesn&#8217;t really address the relevant legal issues in any way.
You get the sense that Sheetz was stunned by the Biden administration&#8217;s claims to the contrary. The federal government&#8217;s complaint goes on to state that:
<blockquote>The Commission engaged in communications with Defendants to provide Defendants an opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices. &#8230; [but] the Commission was unable to secure from Defendants a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.</blockquote>
In other words, Sheetz didn&#8217;t back down in the face of this blackmail. So now they have a massive lawsuit to deal with, along with defamatory media coverage. 
Obviously, this is one of the more egregious examples you&#8217;ll ever see of the soft bigotry of low expectations — or the soft bigotry of no expectations, in this case. If I were black, I would be highly insulted by the idea that a criminal background check presents some kind of insurmountable hurdle for me specifically. It&#8217;s a lot like saying black people can&#8217;t possibly obtain voter identification, which is another common claim you&#8217;ll hear from the Biden administration. What the Left is effectively saying is that there&#8217;s simply no chance for black, Indian, or &#8220;multiracial&#8221; job applicants to stop committing a disproportionate amount of crimes. 
So, instead of doing anything to get them to commit less crime, we have to pretend that business owners are the real criminals. If they refuse to hire nonwhite applicants for any reason, they&#8217;ll get a lawsuit. But of course, they can continue to discriminate against whites all they want.
Sheetz seems to understand that. And there are already signs they&#8217;re going to cave. In response to this lawsuit, Sheetz issued a statement <a href="https://csnews.com/sheetz-reaffirms-commitment-di-following-eeoc-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying:</a> 
<blockquote>Diversity and inclusion are essential parts of who we are &#8230; We take these allegations seriously. We have attempted to work with the EEOC for nearly eight years to find common ground and resolve this dispute.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not exactly a full-throated defense of their position, which is obviously the correct one. And as their statement notes, this has been going on for a long time — eight years in fact. So there&#8217;s some history here. I looked into it, and it turns out that this isn&#8217;t the first time the EEOC has filed a lawsuit like this. Back in 2019, the EEOC under the Trump administration <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/dollar-general-pay-6-million-settle-eeoc-class-race-discrimination-suit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued</a> Dollar General for:
<blockquote>…denying employment to African Americans at a significantly higher rate than white applicants for failing the company&#8217;s broad criminal background check.</blockquote>
What was the result? A $6 million settlement and a three-year consent decree.
According to a top EEOC attorney at the time,
<blockquote>This case is important because Dollar General is not just providing relief for a past practice but for the future as well. &#8230; If the company plans to use criminal history, it must retain a criminologist to develop a fair process. Unlike other background checks based on unproven myths and biases about people with criminal backgrounds, Dollar General&#8217;s new approach will be informed by experts with knowledge of actual risk.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s hard to believe it&#8217;s a real quote. They&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s an &#8220;unproven myth and bias&#8221; to believe that someone with a previous history of criminal behavior is more likely to commit other crimes in the future. You don&#8217;t need any statistics to know how absurd that is. You just need common sense. But here are the statistics anyway. According to the DOJ&#8217;s <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/04-2022/reintegration_resources.html#:~:text=State%20prisoner%20recidivism%20rates%20average,Durose%2C%20and%20Markman%202018)." target="_blank" rel="noopener">own numbers:</a>
<blockquote>&#8230; at least half of citizens released from incarceration will recidivate in some way following release. </blockquote>
And according to other <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/repeatarrests.html#:~:text=Our%20analysis%20finds%20that%2027,to%20jail%20within%20a%20year." target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimates</a>, including a survey from Prison Policy, roughly a third of people who are arrested report that they&#8217;re re-arrested for another offense within a year. There are about a million other data points you can find. But suffice it to say, it&#8217;s not a &#8220;myth&#8221; that criminals are more likely to reoffend. It&#8217;s an extremely basic and obvious fact. And yet the EEOC pretended it&#8217;s not real. Now Dollar General needs an &#8220;expert&#8221; to tell them they&#8217;re being racist if they reject a black guy with five prior convictions.
How did that go completely unnoticed at the time? Why didn&#8217;t the Trump White House override what the EEOC was doing and fire everyone involved? Who knows. The most likely answer is that the White House wasn&#8217;t aware of it. And if that&#8217;s the case, it&#8217;s hard to think of a better argument that the federal government needs to be cut in half immediately, for starters, and most of these unelected bureaucrats need to find new jobs. They have gone rogue and they&#8217;re implementing policies that defy all logic, and they should be fired en masse.
That should be the first executive order if, in fact, there is a second Trump administration. With the Sheetz case, the Biden administration is trying to shake down yet another company in order to erase the distinction between criminals and noncriminals. This is economic sabotage. And it simply can’t be allowed to succeed.

“now hiring” sign posted on business door

Biden Administration Declares That Criminal Background Checks Are Racist Against Black People

Biden Administration

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

EEOC

Let’s try to follow the winding contours of this bizarre story.
It begins earlier this week with students at Mt. Nebo Middle School in Utah staging a walk out in protest of all the furries that administrators have allowed to infest the school. It began with a petition, which gained over 500 signatures in a few days, calling for the school to start enforcing its dress codes and stop allowing students to come to class dressed in their furry costumes.
Then came the walk out. Adam Bartholomew, a local commentator in Utah, captured footage of the event. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Kids Protest" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I09wl5Q0UlE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the furries have gone feral, it seems. They are biting and scratching and pouncing on people. Some of the students have had enough of this behavior. They want to go to school at a school, not a petting zoo. And that’s why they walked out.
But then the fact checkers leapt into action to throw cold water on this whole story. Or to try, at least. Here’s the Salt Lake Tribune: 
<blockquote>Fact check: Nebo School District responds to claims about student protest over ‘furries.’ A district spokesperson said the protest seemed to be organized after a message sent to families was misinterpreted.</blockquote>
What kind of misinterpretation can lead these students to think that there are a bunch of furries in the school when there really aren’t? What could you have said in an email that people would mistranslate as a reference to furries? Let’s keep reading:
<blockquote>Video of middle schoolers walking out of a Nebo School District school in Payson on Wednesday quickly spread in conservative social media circles, with posts claiming the students were protesting because the district was allowing student “furries” to “terrorize” other students… Nebo School District spokesperson Seth Sorenson said that claim was false. He also said students at the middle school are not wearing full-body animal costumes to class, as “furries” — part of a subculture of people who sometimes dress up like animal characters but act like humans — are known to do… Dismissing the claims, Sorenson said the Wednesday protest seemed to be organized after a message the school sent to families last week was misinterpreted. The message was sent after a group of students had been targeting another group of students, saying things “that were overheard by others that the administration felt were inappropriate and shouldn’t be said,” Sorenson said. The group of students being targeted, he added, were students who sometimes come to school wearing headbands “that may have ears on them.” He said doesn’t think the targeted students necessarily refer to themselves as “furries.”</blockquote>
So the spokesman says there are no furries. The kids are lying, or somehow confused. There aren’t any furries, but there might be some kids wearing animal ears to class. Those kids, he says, may or may not identify as furries. It’s all a big misunderstanding. 
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1351-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
But then he goes on to admit that there have been altercations over people “dressing differently:&#8221; 
<blockquote>In one specific instance, the targeted students “were sitting in a corner of the lunchroom, eating as a group of friends” when others began calling them names and throwing food at them “because they were dressed differently,” Sorenson told The Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday, providing more details about the situation. After word of the altercation spread, the school sent an initial message to families last Friday, stating, “We expect ALL students to be respectful towards each other while we are here at school.” “We hope you will treat others how you would like to be treated,” the message stated. “Outstanding behavior might demonstrate curiosity, understanding, patience and tolerance.”… But Sorenson said he thinks some parents misinterpreted the note, incorrectly taking it as a message that the school was “taking the side of a single group, saying, ‘We want you to be kind to this group, but they don’t have to be kind to anyone else.’” “Nobody was taking the side of one group or another,” he said. “What we were saying is everyone needs to treat everyone else with respect.&#8221;</blockquote>
Wait a second — he says the school isn’t taking the side of “a single group.” What group? I thought he said there weren’t any furries. Which group is he referring to? I thought the group in question doesn’t exist at the school? What is the fact check here? Is he saying that there are furries at school but he’s not taking their side? Is he confirming that there are indeed kids coming to class dressed like animals? 
This “fact check,” and the dozens of others published by various outlets over the last couple of days, have made it seem like the reports of furries were pure unfounded rumor. But that’s not quite what I’m getting from the spokesman’s own words. And then there’s this: 
<blockquote>On Tuesday, the school sent another message to parents, trying to clarify its original note. “We have had several parents reach out to us over the past few days, regarding rumors that are being spread about behaviors of a small group of students at our school,” the message read. “We hoped our efforts to clarify misconceptions would be sufficient, but it seems we still have some misunderstandings.”The note went on to quote the Friday message, and concluded with an acknowledgement of rumored plans of a walkout protest Wednesday.”</blockquote>
There’s again a reference to this group of students who, according to the fact checkers, don’t exist. How can a non-existent group of furries exhibit any behaviors at all, given that they don’t exist? Or do they? And if they don’t exist then why did we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears kids from that school, on camera, saying explicitly that their classmates are being permitted to come to class dressed like animals, and act like animals too? 
Here’s a video from a guy named Eric Moutsos with more insight from people who work at the school:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 School Teacher Responds 2" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uDfng0vcQJI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Okay, well that confirms it. The furries in school is not a rumor, it’s not misinformation.
The Left has been denying that this sort of thing is happening for years. But here you have a teacher who is on the side of the furries — a teacher who doesn’t like the kids who were protesting — admitting, publicly, that “a few kids dress as pets.” She says that like it’s completely normal, like she sees no problem with it. She doesn’t, and that IS the problem.
We can have debates over dress codes and how strict they should be. But any halfway sane person should agree that the dress code should at least require every student to dress like a human being, at a minimum. Dressing as a pet is not something that a child of any age should be doing on a regular basis. Especially not a middle school aged child — during school hours.
By the way, the same guy, Eric Moutsos, has also obtained these photos of kids at this school dressed in their animal costumes.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006b Furries" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1RZib3bU-Mg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006c Furries" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6M7FYihcRuE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So we’ve got some kind of velociraptor-lion hybrid, and then a bunch of variations of cats. Kids are dressing like this for school. Their parents are letting them leave the house in animal masks. For school. This is happening. It hasn’t been debunked. It is real.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006a Furries" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qmU3MyEXEUc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But we haven’t gotten to the weirdest part of this story, somehow. The local ABC affiliate decided to provide more context by interviewing a furry in costume, and referring to the woman as her fictional character’s name. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 Strudel" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3yHZE_2YW28?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes, she doesn’t want these kids to “muddy the name” of the furries. They must not sully the reputation of the furries. They shouldn’t do anything that gives the public the impression that people who walk around in animal costumes are —I don’t know — weird, bizarre, deranged, mentally unbalanced. That’s according to “Strudel,” who the reporter refers to as Strudel, while also respecting the non-binary pronouns of the fictional character that the woman in the costume is pretending to be.
You may like to think that this is the media’s low point. That it has finally hit rock bottom. That it cannot possibly get any more embarrassing than this. But there is no bottom, I’m afraid. Searching for the media’s lowest point is like searching for the end of a black hole. It just keeps going and going, and it gets darker and darker all the while.
This — as many of us have warned for years — is the result of emphasizing tolerance and acceptance above all. I don’t say it’s the end result. It is not the final result. As I said, there is no end. There is no finality. It can always get weirder and more disturbing. But this is a result. This is an inevitable stop along the way once you board the crazy train.
When you start telling people — especially kids — that they can be whatever they want to be, and identify as whatever they want to identify as, of course some of them choose to be animals.
And since you’ve elevated tolerance and “personal expression” as the highest virtues, you now have no way of telling these kids not to behave this way. How can you? They’re expressing themselves; they’re being who they feel they are, deep inside. The school can&#8217;t put a stop to this without backtracking on the entire woke program. That’s clearly how they see it and they’re right.
There’s an interesting segment from that ABC affiliate’s written report on this issue. It also quotes Strudel, and calls her that in the report, but then it says this:
<blockquote>According to WebMD, a furry is someone who has an interest in animals with human qualities, and who sometimes dresses up as a cartoon-like version of an animal. “I really like the idea of animals that walk and talk, so I’m going to dress up as one, as kind of a fun sort of cosplay thing,” Strudel said… WebMD said people are often interested in becoming furries to find a sense of community, though some of the drawbacks they may face are negative stereotypes and social stigmas.</blockquote>
Now, I have no idea why WebMD is being consulted for furry information, but in any event, it implies that the “negative stereotypes” and “social stigmas” against this “community” are wrong. But they aren’t. There should be a social stigma attached to walking around in a ridiculous costume. It is normal for a person to treat such behavior as bizarre and antisocial, because it is bizarre and antisocial behavior.
A lot of what we now refer to as “bullying” among children is really just children acting normal and responding to weird, unhealthy things in a way that conveys that the things are weird and unhealthy. The schools want to condition children out of that natural, normal response. They want your child to treat the furry as normal, and then eventually see the furry as normal, and then eventually become one himself, or something just as, or more, bizarre.
That’s the process and the agenda. And it’s playing out at schools all across the country right now.

American School Buses

Students Protest As Their School Becomes Infested By Furries

Education

Furries

Public Schools

Salt Lake City

Utah

It&#8217;s not every day that a ribbon-cutting ceremony in the Democratic Republic of Congo attracts international media attention. Normally, Congo flies under the radar, even though it&#8217;s actually one of the biggest countries in the world — it&#8217;s bigger than Mexico, believe it or not. But a couple of years ago, this incredible footage from the capital of Congo was picked up by the Western media. It&#8217;s from the grand opening of a footbridge that was apparently a big deal for the locals. Here&#8217;s how it went:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Bridge Collapses" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nerrMqtJbvQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It&#8217;s a little like the collapse of that bridge in Baltimore, except in this case, a barge didn&#8217;t need to hit anything. All they had to do was cut the ribbon and stand on the bridge, and the whole thing came crashing down on them. Fortunately, no one was hurt in that incident. It got a few laughs on social media and everyone moved on.
In retrospect, however, the collapse of that footbridge in Congo&#8217;s capital was more than just a meme on the internet. It was a practical manifestation of something that Western academics now want to import into this country. There is a concerted effort underway in universities all over the world to &#8220;decolonize&#8221; mathematics, engineering, and science in general. It&#8217;s been generations since Congo was under Belgian rule, so presumably that footbridge is a great example of decolonized engineering. And now the West wants to emulate it.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1349-dumbing-down-education-in-the-name-of-decolonization" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
I first noticed this trend when I came across a recent <a href="https://science.anu.edu.au/news-events/news/maths-has-no-borders-professor-rowena-ball-brings-indigenous-mathematics-anu" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> from Australian National University, which according to Wikipedia, is supposedly an impressive institution. The gist is that a professor in Australia named Rowena Ball is trying to get the concept of &#8220;Indigenous Mathematics&#8221; off the ground because Aboriginal people struggle with European mathematics, otherwise known as real mathematics. The article includes this remarkable line:
<blockquote>Numbers and arithmetic and accounting often are of secondary importance in Indigenous mathematics.</blockquote>
That seems to make as much sense as saying that words are of secondary importance in linguistics. Or that maps or of secondary importance in the science of cartography. How can you have mathematics without numbers and arithmetic, exactly? Read on, and Professor Ball will tell you: 
<blockquote>Mathematics is primarily the science of patterns &#8230; and recognising and classifying those patterns. &#8230; One interesting example that we are currently investigating is the use of chiral symmetry to engineer a long-distance smoke signalling technology in real time. If you light an incense stick you will see the twin counter-rotating vortices that emanate − these are a chiral pair, meaning they are non-superimposable mirror images of each other.</blockquote>
The article goes on to explain:
<blockquote>A memoir by Alice Duncan Kemp, who grew up on a cattle station … in the early 1900s, vividly describes the signalling procedure, in which husband-and-wife expert team Bogie and Mary-Anne selected and pulsed the smoke waves with a left to right curl, to signal &#8216;white men&#8217;, instead of the more usual right to left spiral. &#8230; To create and understand these signals, you have to be a skilled practical mathematician, Professor Ball says.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not hard to see what&#8217;s been conflated here. Yes, it&#8217;s possible to argue that the act of lighting the incense stick and producing &#8220;counter-rotating vortices&#8221; does, in a way, implicate mathematics and particularly geometry. As does literally everything that happens in the physical world. It&#8217;s like saying LeBron James is a skilled mathematician because his three-pointers make nice parabolas. He&#8217;s not thinking in his head about the parabolic equation when he&#8217;s playing. He probably doesn&#8217;t even know what a parabolic equation is. 
In the case that Professor Ball is talking about, there&#8217;s nothing really &#8220;mathematical&#8221; in any traditional sense about generating smoke signals, and frankly, depending on the size of the vocabulary of the signaling system, it&#8217;s probably something you could train apes to do — even though they have no understanding of language, much less math. It&#8217;s like saying a child successfully flying a kite is doing math. It&#8217;s nonsense. You might as well say that simply by walking across the room you are engaged in mathematics.
These are very simple phenomena we&#8217;re talking about. Throwing a basketball and lighting an incense stick is not rocket science. Your brain is doing &#8220;complex calculations&#8221; when you shoot a basketball, sure. Or even when you walk across the room. And because our mathematics is so sophisticated and precise, we can describe the physical phenomenon to a great degree of sophistication and precision. But that&#8217;s only because our mathematics can penetrate reality to that degree. 
You don&#8217;t have to wonder how precise African folk math or whatever can get in describing that stuff — to say nothing of the math and mathematical physics required to build stuff like nuclear reactors, rocket engines, computers, et cetera. That stuff absolutely requires not just numbers, but advanced and highly abstract theories.
But highly abstract theories are out of style now — and not just in Australia. Braindead oversimplification is the name of the game. Here for example is a recent TedX talk delivered by a woman who teaches mathematics in Canada. She&#8217;s also a vice principal in the Ottawa school district. Listen to her understanding of what mathematics is all about:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Math" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qHRiYNSfcCY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well, I guess there&#8217;s some good news here. I must be a genius mathematician myself because I made coffee and picked out my own clothes this morning. This will come as news to all of my grade school math teachers, who graded my math exams in a manner that conveyed a certain lack of faith in my mathematical prowess. But if only they’d known that I already passed the math test just by getting dressed before I came to school. If only I’d been as brain damaged as academic elites are today. Then maybe I would have thought to make that argument myself.
Anyway, a little over a year ago there was an <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-sinister-attempts-to-decolonise-mathematics/">in-depth column</a> in The Spectator about this movement to discredit and undermine serious academic disciplines, especially math. It was written by John Armstrong, who teaches at King&#8217;s College London and previously taught at Oxford. He&#8217;s an actual mathematician with actual credentials. And he summed up the problem with this whole push to &#8220;decolonize&#8221; math pretty simply.
<blockquote>The fact is that colonialism is irrelevant to the validity of mathematics. The Mayan civilization was doing sophisticated mathematics in the Americas long before Christopher Colombus arrived on the continent. &#8230; The digits 0123456789 we use today were first written in India and inspired by Chinese mathematics. They were popularised by Persian and Arab mathematicians and then made their way to Europe via the Moors’ conquest of Southern Spain. Admittedly the Moors’ conquest of Spain was a form of colonialism, but apparently not the type of colonialism we are meant to be interested in.</blockquote>
So what do these activists mean when they say they want to &#8220;decolonize&#8221; math, given that the entire idea of de-colonizing math is completely incoherent? The Arabs were colonizers, too. And why are Australians, of all people, so interested in promoting this idea?
One possibility is that by some estimates, as the Twitter account I/o points out, aboriginal Australians happen to have, on average, the second lowest IQ out of any demographic group on the planet. That&#8217;s the sort of thing that&#8217;s supposed to be unsayable, but it&#8217;s impossible to talk about certain groups struggling academically without bringing up the intellectual elephant in the room. There might be a reason why there aren’t many Aboriginals working at NASA. It&#8217;s an important point because it means that decolonization, practically speaking, entails dumbing down these subjects or destroying them altogether.
Mainly we see with the &#8220;decolonization&#8221; agenda the embarrassment that liberal Westerners feel about the fact that their ancestors were far more advanced — in just about every way, and by every available measure — than the native people they conquered. The liberal Westerner is constantly looking for ways to even out the score. And we&#8217;re seeing that more and more in this country as well.
The once-respected Nature magazine, for example, recently <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00240-9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> an editorial (with no byline) that reads: &#8220;Why we have nothing to fear from the decolonization of mathematics.&#8221;
What&#8217;s amazing is that, if you read the whole editorial, you won&#8217;t actually find a definition of what &#8220;decolonization&#8221; means in this context. You won&#8217;t find anything close to a definition, actually. The most you&#8217;ll discover is that according to Nature, decolonization:
<blockquote>&#8230;shows that the roots of discovery and invention are shared between many world cultures, which can be particularly empowering for people from historically marginalized groups. Decolonizing science is the antidote to exceptionalism, the idea that any single culture or civilization possessed special abilities in advancing science.</blockquote>
But as we just established, some cultures and civilizations did, indeed, advance science and mathematics more than others. Some of them were colonizers, and some of those colonizers were not white. And regardless, none of this has anything to do with mathematics. Maybe you can argue this belongs in some elective history course somewhere. But it has no place affecting courses on the fundamentals of mathematics, which is exactly what&#8217;s happening in this country.
Pittsburgh Public Schools, for example, recently <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pittsburgh-public-schools-change-math-instruction-more-equitable/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> a plan to make mathematics instruction more &#8220;equitable.&#8221; What does that mean? Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Pittsburgh Public Schools" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/egX-7nQ4Jt0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It&#8217;s not about getting the right answer anymore in Pittsburgh&#8217;s math classes. It&#8217;s about the &#8220;journey.&#8221; The next time your bridge collapses, remember that. Your death isn&#8217;t what&#8217;s important. What matters is that the incompetent engineer who built the bridge had high self esteem. Yes, you might be lying on the ground, mangled and dying, with a giant metal beam spearing you through your stomach, but as you lay there expiring, just think about the “journey” that those bridge engineers were on. That should give you comfort.
It&#8217;s the same thing the Canadian teacher said in her TEDx talk. The goal is for everyone to feel like a mathematician, regardless of ability. None of this has anything to do with actually teaching math, of course, which is the point. Students can fail math courses — and they&#8217;ve been doing a lot of that in Pittsburgh. But it&#8217;s harder to fail a course that begins with the assumption that every student is gifted in mathematics, no matter what their test scores or actual mathematical aptitude might say.
The other underlying factor that drives all of this superficial decolonization rhetoric and activism is a deep insecurity about actual knowledge on the part of those circulating this garbage. And it&#8217;s very well-founded insecurity, especially when it comes to ignorance regarding history.
Everything is a cartoon with these people: cartoon history, cartoon philosophy, etc. It&#8217;s barely high-school debate talking points stuff — it&#8217;s more elementary school level thinking — which does make it easier to incorporate into lower education, incidentally.
But to be clear, this isn&#8217;t just happening in Pittsburgh. It&#8217;s easy to pick on Pittsburgh, for a lot of reasons. As I&#8217;ve said <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxm9BTAJCBU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">before</a>, the city is falling apart. But this effort to &#8220;decolonize&#8221; math has serious financial backers, and schools everywhere are adopting similar approaches.
In 2018, Bill Gates&#8217; foundation <a href="https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resource-collections/profile-8826" target="_blank" rel="noopener">created</a> something called the &#8220;Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,&#8221; intended for use in grades 6 through 8. The &#8220;pathway&#8221; <a href="https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">trains teachers</a> who:
<blockquote>In order to embody antiracist math education, teachers must engage in critical praxis that interrogates the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms, and develop a plan toward antiracist math education to address issues of equity for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.</blockquote>
Why would Bill Gates want to promote nonsense like this? It&#8217;s hard to say. No one appears to have asked him. But we do know that, in the years since 2018, math literacy in this country has <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/us-students-math-scores-decline-pisa-assessment-mental-health-concerns-1849812#:~:text=Despite%20stable%20performances%20in%20reading,that%20participated%20in%20the%20assessment." target="_blank" rel="noopener">plummeted</a>. In 2018, something called the &#8220;Program for International Student Assessment&#8221; measured the average 15-year-olds&#8217; math aptitude in this country at a score of 478. By 2022, that score had dropped to 465. Meanwhile, data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that U.S. math and reading scores are at their <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/06/21/1183445544/u-s-reading-and-math-scores-drop-to-lowest-level-in-decades" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lowest level</a> in decades.
You can blame that on COVID and wonky gain-of-function research if you want (which Bill Gates also <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-bill-gates-ties-gain-function-research-funding-danger-mankind" target="_blank" rel="noopener">funded</a> through the W.H.O., by the way). But there&#8217;s not a serious person alive who thinks that any of this decolonization propaganda is actually helping these scores move in the right direction. It&#8217;s doing the opposite, by design.
This is every bit as serious an attack on this country as the airport and bridge raids that I covered yesterday. This is an attack on our ability to build airports and bridges in the first place. And unless we want our bridges to function like Congo&#8217;s in the near future, it needs to end.

professor writing on the board while having a chalk and blackboard lecture (shallow DOF; color toned image)

Dumbing Down Education In The Name Of ‘Decolonization’

Dumbing Down Education In The Name Of 'Decolonization'

Anti-Racism

Colonialism

Congo

Mathematics

Pittsburgh

Woke Culture

The Honorable Matt Walsh, self-described as the “wisest, fairest, most just and most handsome judge in the world” is back to hear two more wild cases on “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/judged-by-matt-walsh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JUDGED by Matt Walsh</a>.”
This time, the Daily Wire podcast host gave his thoughts on two strippers who once shared a sugar daddy and a housecleaner scandalized by a house full of stuffed dead animals.
“<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exploding-lips-on-a-plane-judged-by-matt-walsh-debuts-with-a-bang" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JUDGED</a>” documents real-life cases of people who have been mildly inconvenienced. These petty disputes land at Walsh’s feet, and he rules on each case with his deadpan, no-nonsense delivery that’s both wise and hilarious.
The first case of episode three features a woman suing her friend for backing out of a planned out-of-town trip for the purpose of exotic dancing. The plaintiff, Chloe Abadi, claims the friend owes her for outfits, stripper heels, and dance classes she paid for, plus travel fees. But defendant Gabby Goldstein insists she backed out of the trip after finding God… again.
The two women met because they both had the same “sugar daddy,” or a man who pays for younger women to spend time with him or provide sexual favors.
When the defendant said she originally stopped stripping because she “found God,” Walsh asked, “You found God. But then you suggested stripping to your friend. So at what point did you lose God?”
“Well, when I remembered that I made so much money,” she replied.
“Really inspiring conversion story,” Walsh said. “St. Augustine ‘Confessions’ comes to mind.”
The wise judge seemed skeptical that Goldstein once again felt God speaking to her amid the stench of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana in the strip club.
“I have found this time with you both to be deeply depressing in so many ways that I can barely articulate,” Judge Walsh said in his verdict. “This is a difficult case. Not because I&#8217;m having trouble figuring out who was right, but because I&#8217;m having trouble figuring out who is the most wrong. There is no one right here.”
“There&#8217;s no hero in this sad, sad tale,” he continued. “Miss Goldstein, prior to hearing this case, I would have thought that the worst thing a woman could do to her friend is convince her to become a stripper. But you convinced your friend to become a stripper and then abandoned her once she followed your suggestion. So it&#8217;s a bit like leading her to the poison Kool-Aid and while she drinks it, you have a glass of water instead.”
Walsh concludes by saying the correct decision would be to sentence both women to spend two years in a monastery to “learn discipline, moral virtue and self-denial,” but barring that, he sent them home with nothing besides the directive to “get the hell out of my courtroom.”
The second case was scandalous in a totally different way. A house cleaner sued her friend for the balance she said she’s owed after leaving the cleaning project undone. The plaintiff Ash Asauskas said she found a closet of stuffed animals and was chased out of the house by a dog.
Asauskas described the property as “the most disgusting house I&#8217;ve ever seen in my entire life” and provided Judge Walsh with photographic evidence.
“We have a tetanus kitchen here,” Walsh agreed, asking for an explanation of the dead bird in the sink, which was allegedly being saved for being “pickled” later. Asauskas said she was eventually forced to leave because of the aggressive dog.
When it was time for defendant Aubrey Ropiecki to speak, Walsh said, “The first question I have is, what the hell?”
Ropiecki tried to defend her hobby, saying “friends” helped her get “ethically sourced” dead animals to preserve.
“So your friends are bringing you roadkill?” Walsh asked.
“I have good friends,” the defendant replied.
“I don’t know if that’s the word I’d use to describe them,” Judge Walsh said. “How’d you get into this hobby?” he asked next. “What possessed you? Are you possessed?”
After listening to Ropiecki justify her “art” and showing him examples, including a chicken foot, Walsh made his opinions known. “I&#8217;m not much of an animal lover myself, but if I was a chicken and I died, I wouldn&#8217;t want to think that this is what has become of me,” Judge Walsh mused.
In his final verdict, the judge suggested Ropiecki get a new hobby. “Scrapbooking, gardening, literally anything besides handling rotting corpses,” Walsh suggested.
Look forward to more exciting cases on the first season of “JUDGED by Matt Walsh.” New episodes will drop weekly on Tuesdays, <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/judged/?utm_campaign=judged&amp;utm_medium=paid&amp;utm_source=performancemax&amp;utm_content=na_subscriptions&amp;gad_source=1&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjw5v2wBhBrEiwAXDDoJX7O_QZnFBnpqzZtoaogdJp5HEnc0b4Twq8tIQrhsvZ4spUwUOquIBoCslcQAvD_BwE" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exclusively on DailyWire+</a>.
See you in the courtroom.

Judge Walsh

‘JUDGED By Matt Walsh’ Ep. 3 Gets Real With Pole Dancers And Roadkill Taxidermy

'JUDGED By Matt Walsh' Ep. 3 Gets Real With Pole Dancers And Roadkill Taxidermy

The first target in any protracted military campaign is pretty much always infrastructure.
When the U.S. invaded Iraq with a &#8220;shock and awe&#8221; strategy, we hit the bridges right away. We did the same thing in Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and Korea. The reason for that is pretty simple: If you shut down transportation, you shut down the country.
The purpose of taking out bridges and airports isn&#8217;t to convince anyone that you&#8217;re right. It&#8217;s not a moral argument. The point is to disable your enemy as quickly as possible and to make them vulnerable to further attack.
After what happened yesterday, it&#8217;s clear that the domestic enemies of the United States — the ones we&#8217;ve imported and those our universities have indoctrinated — understand the importance of infrastructure very well. In a series of coordinated attacks, Hamas sympathizers stormed bridges and airports all over the country. I&#8217;m going to go through several of these attacks, and I&#8217;ll start with by far the most significant and longest-lasting interruption. It took place on both the Golden Gate Bridge and Interstate 880 in Oakland. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Golden Gate" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YqvKXG_jTVM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So just a month ago, activists shut down the Bay Bridge. As you just heard, they delayed several organ donations. The San Francisco Chronicle <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/motorist-stuck-bay-bridge-protest-describes-19085430.php">reported</a> that at least one person had a medical emergency while he was stuck in traffic. But nothing happened to any of the people responsible for that, they received something like five hours of community service. So yesterday, it happened again, this time on the Golden Gate Bridge and on the interstate.
News reports like this always say &#8220;protesters&#8221; are shutting down traffic. That&#8217;s accurate, but it only tells part of the story. The other part is that the political leaders in these cities are also choosing to shut down traffic by allowing the protesters to do it. It would be exceedingly easy to not only clear these blockades but also dissuade anyone from ever pulling a stunt like this again. All you would have to do is pull them off the road by force and then hit them with every criminal charge even vaguely applicable, including terrorism charges. Throw the whole book at just one of these people, one time, and it will never happen again. Give one of them prison time — real prison time, 15 years of prison time — and the problem is solved. 
Forever. Just like that. 
Instead, the authorities in California are doing the opposite. The last time this took place, they gave these criminals a few hours of community service.. This time they let them shut down one of the longest bridges in the country for five hours before making a single arrest. All told, 38 people were ultimately <a href="https://abc7news.com/pro-palestinian-protesters-shut-down-golden-gate-bridge-and-i-880-in-oakland/14668534/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested</a> between the Golden Gate Bridge and the Oakland interstate. They were hit with a variety of charges from false imprisonment to unlawful assembly.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1348-activists-who-shut-down-highways-aren-t-protesters-they-re-terrorists-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
None of those charges, it&#8217;s important to point out, carry a potential sentence of over a decade in prison. That kind of penalty is reserved for pro-life demonstrators who pray outside of abortion clinics and allegedly block access to the facility. If you do that, you get the predawn SWAT team raid from the DOJ and a very good chance you spend the next 10 years in prison. But if you sit on the highway for five hours and prevent thousands of people from getting where they need to go, then that&#8217;s not as big a deal. In fact, false imprisonment is the most serious charge that any of these demonstrators face, and the max you can get for that in California is something like four years. 
Of course, it&#8217;s virtually certain they&#8217;re not going to serve that time or even go to trial for any of this. They&#8217;ll all get community service and do the same thing again a month from now.
And that&#8217;s odd, even by the Biden administration&#8217;s own logic — because for all we know, there might have been people on these roads who were headed to get abortions. And they were delayed or even blocked from doing so. Will the DOJ look into the number of Californians who had to reschedule their abortions yesterday because their bridge was illegally shut down? Think of how many children might still be alive because of those protesters. Think about how many opportunities to murder babies were squandered. That&#8217;s the kind of thing that normally keeps Merrick Garland up at night.
If pro-lifers deserve a decade in prison for mildly inconveniencing people who are trying to access one abortion clinic in Nashville, these people deserve a century. But of course, they&#8217;re on the Left, so they can literally do whatever they want, all the time. Logic doesn&#8217;t really apply. There will be no DOJ probe into the organizers of this protest. There will be no RICO case against them.
But increasingly, it&#8217;s clear that there should be. <a href="https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/heres-why-the-golden-gate-bridge-i-880-shut-down/#:~:text=Protester%20organizer%20Ellen%20Caminiti%20sent,in%20Palestine%2C" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According </a>to San Francisco&#8217;s local news station KRON, a woman named Ellen Caminiti was one of the &#8220;organizers&#8221; of the Golden Gate protest yesterday. She was apparently off-site, serving as a representative. I looked her up, and it turns out she&#8217;s the <a href="https://www.nclrights.org/about-us/who-we-are/ellen-caminiti/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">communications director</a> at a nonprofit called the National Center for Lesbian Rights, or NCLR. So this is an organization that gets tax breaks to advance &#8220;lesbian rights,&#8221; and at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday, their communications director was organizing a criminal blockade of one of the most important bridges in the country. One of my producers reached out to Ellen Caminiti about this. She said, quote, &#8220;NCLR had no role in it, that is just my day-job, which is completely separate from this.&#8221; 
What&#8217;s confusing about that, again, is that this blockade took place first thing Monday morning. That counts as &#8220;during the day.&#8221; So it sounds like Ellen Caminiti&#8217;s &#8220;day job&#8221; is shutting down infrastructure in San Francisco in the name of &#8220;Palestinian solidarity.&#8221; We followed up with NCLR to ask them about this. We wanted to know if they had any reaction whatsoever to their employee assisting in a criminal blockade during the workday. They didn&#8217;t respond to that question. All they said is that they had nothing to do with the blockade.
You&#8217;d think that, if NCLR disagreed with what their employee did during work hours, they&#8217;d fire her immediately. At the very least they&#8217;d condemn what she did. Especially given that she did it on behalf of Hamas, a group that would happily toss everyone in the organization off of a rooftop. But no such luck. 
That&#8217;s because NCLR, like many so-called Left-wing &#8220;public interest nonprofits,&#8221; isn&#8217;t really working in the public interest at all. It&#8217;s a tax shelter that employs unhinged activists who want to destroy this country. They should lose their tax-exempt nonprofit status immediately. Nonprofits aren&#8217;t supposed to have anything remotely to do with criminal activity, and it definitely sounds like, at a minimum, they&#8217;re tacitly endorsing exactly that. But, of course, there will be no DOJ investigation, at least not under the Biden administration, because the Biden administration wants these kinds of blockades to occur. That&#8217;s why they took place all day yesterday, all over the country.
In Seattle, demonstrators blocked access to the airport, forcing travelers to walk to the terminal. 
In New York, thugs stormed the Brooklyn Bridge. 
In Chicago, they blocked the highway leading to O&#8217;Hare airport. 
In Dearborn Michigan, a caravan of Hamas sympathizers backed up traffic. 
In Fremont California, they attacked a Tesla production facility, apparently because of Elon Musk&#8217;s tweets, forcing the plant to declare an emergency and close. 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Clips Montage" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dMd8fxK7Kl8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In all of these cases, except for the situation in Fremont, there wasn&#8217;t much of a police response, at least not initially. In Seattle, officers eventually arrested the people blockading the roadway. Julio Rosas reports that on the Brooklyn Bridge, the NYPD made an effort to stop the demonstrators, and succeeded in stopping about half of them. But traffic was still disrupted. 
As far as I can tell, the only decisive reaction to these riots took place in Miami, where police hauled away the demonstrators the moment they broke the law. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Initial Miami" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lij0C4Q5-1Y?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Miami Crackdown" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/spQf_n_vwdo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well, look at that. The police just drag them away. It&#8217;s not hard. It takes a few minutes, and the whole city is no longer held hostage by a handful of terrorists. Just throw them in jail and make an example of them. 
Governor Ron DeSantis&#8217; communications director uploaded the footage you just saw, along with this <a href="https://x.com/BryanDGriffin/status/1779972576422322354">message:</a> &#8220;In Florida, we drag these people out of the road and arrest them.&#8221;
That&#8217;s obviously the right response, as rare as it may be. And when police don&#8217;t do this, immediately, then citizens have every right to do it themselves. Senator Tom Cotton put it <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/1780039918737121502">this way</a>, &#8220;I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way. It&#8217;s time to put an end to this nonsense.&#8221;
Of course, the problem with what Tom Cotton said is that, if someone does take matters into their own hands, there&#8217;s a very good chance they&#8217;ll spend the rest of their life in prison. The Biden DOJ will destroy them. They will do nothing to protect innocent people from these terrorists. But the moment someone tries to take action — even if it&#8217;s justified — then the feds will hunt them down. It&#8217;s almost like that&#8217;s what the Biden administration wants to happen at this point.
It appears to be what the NYPD wants. Yesterday, police officers didn&#8217;t have much of a reaction when a Hamas sympathizer lit an American flag on fire and shouted &#8220;Death to America,&#8221; right in front of about five cops. He just walked away. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 NY Fire" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CmUTer8OELI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Now, if you call yourself &#8220;America first&#8221; — and a lot of people do now — it goes without saying that you should be stridently opposed to people who shout &#8220;death to America,&#8221; burn American flags, and go out of their way to cause problems for American citizens. If your &#8220;America first&#8221; principles somehow find common cause with people who wish death on America and its people, that&#8217;s a good indication that you are, at best, very confused. But that confusion needs to end at this point. This is well past the realm of online trolling. There are now coordinated attacks occurring all over the country targeting its infrastructure.
You hear a lot of people say, &#8220;Why would these people do this? They&#8217;re not going to convince anyone to support their cause by blocking traffic or shutting down the airport!&#8221; Well, yeah. That&#8217;s because the objective of Hamas sympathizers living in this country isn&#8217;t to convince you of anything. 
Disrupting infrastructure — as always — is just the first phase in a much larger campaign they have planned. And unless more states follow Florida&#8217;s lead and shut this down immediately, then very soon, we&#8217;ll find out what the next phase is.

Gaza War Freeway Protest

Activists Who Shut Down Highways Aren’t ‘Protesters.’ They’re Terrorists.

Activists Who Shut Down Highways Aren't 'Protesters.' They're Terrorists.

Miami

New York City

Palestinians

Police

San Francisco

Screen Shot 2024-04-15 at 3.07.25 PM

Leftist Activist Threatens To Murder Government Officials, Immediately Regrets It

Bakersfield

Iran

Middle East

In 1995, there were two very different versions of the O.J. Simpson trial playing out. For most of the country, the trial was a spectacle. A lot of crazy stuff happened — so much that most people don&#8217;t remember all of it.
Overnight, for example, the National Enquirer tabloid <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/24/us/the-enquirer-required-reading-in-simpson-case.html">morphed</a> into a crack legal publication that broke several exclusive stories about the proceedings. They had 20 reporters working on the case, coming up with transcripts and scoops that everyone else missed. And of course, Norm Macdonald made so many jokes about the case that he was fired from SNL because of it. In the decades since, there hasn&#8217;t been any trial remotely like it — covered wall-to-wall, for months, by pretty much every channel in America. It was entertainment.
At the same time, in black areas of Los Angeles, and in major cities all over the country, the O.J. Simpson trial wasn&#8217;t just a spectacle. It was also about revenge for the Rodney King acquittals and police corruption more generally. That&#8217;s been discussed quite a bit over the last 30 years.
What&#8217;s gotten less attention is that, with the O.J. trial, for the first time, it became widely acceptable to think about the deaths of white people as necessary collateral damage to exact this kind of political revenge.
There was no social media at the time, and cable news was pretty sanitized. So no one with a major television platform came right out and directly said this. But they didn&#8217;t need to. It was obvious, especially if you looked at how little concern there was among O.J. supporters for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and their families.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1346-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
Nicole Brown, as you might remember, was repeatedly beaten by O.J. before she divorced him. And then he hunted her down and nearly cut her head off. Everyone knew this, but not everyone cared. It was apparent from the reactions when O.J. was acquitted. It was euphoria, and it broke down along racial lines. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Videos of people celebrating verdict" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UZCTIAPknPk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
It&#8217;s pretty disturbing footage, especially since at the time it didn&#8217;t cause a lot of outrage. Thousands of people all over the country, most of them black, celebrated the acquittal of someone who obviously just murdered two people. At the time, serious people understood that this was jury nullification. But no one really explored the implications. What does a country look like, over the long term, when murdering white people is seen as acceptable, for any reason? What happens when the media and major political figures endorse this barbarism?
No one seemed to care, even after a juror from the O.J. trial came right out and admitted, many years after the fact, that 90% of the jurors knew that O.J. was guilty. But the jurors acquitted him anyway, because they were driven by a desire for &#8220;payback.&#8221; Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Why Acquit OJ" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qDjbVQR04Bk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
She knows it&#8217;s wrong to let a killer go free, but she did it anyway. So did the rest of the jury.
This has all been known for a while now. What&#8217;s less widely known is that the Los Angeles DA at the time, a Democrat named Gil Garcetti, engineered this acquittal. An attorney named Dilan Esper has <a href="https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1297642386340712448" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cataloged</a> all the ways that Garcetti rigged the trial in favor of O.J. The big one is that he didn&#8217;t try the case in Brentwood, which is in West Los Angeles. That would have been the logical place to hold the trial because Simpson had lived in Brentwood for two decades. But Brentwood is almost exclusively white. And Garcetti recognized that, for O.J. to have the best chance of acquittal, given the racial politics of the case, he needed to pick a new venue. So he chose downtown Los Angeles — where he was able to secure an overwhelmingly black jury with just a couple of white people on it.
Garcetti made several other decisions to swing the case for O.J. For example, he declined to pursue the death penalty after publicly meeting with Johnnie Cochran — who was just about to join O.J.&#8217;s defense team. That was a significant decision because a death penalty jury has to answer &#8220;yes&#8221; to the question of whether they&#8217;d be OK with sentencing someone to death. That weeds out a lot of Left-wing jurors immediately. So Garcetti chose not to do it.
Additionally, Garcetti chose to present the prosecution&#8217;s entire case during pretrial hearings, giving the defense a chance to scope out all of the witnesses well in advance of trial. As Esper points out, this ultimately worked to the defense&#8217;s advantage in a major way. O.J.&#8217;s lawyers picked up on one inconsistency in the pretrial testimony — relating to the amount of blood collected by police investigators — and made it a major part of their defense.
These were not errors, or sloppy work by the prosecutors. These were intentional efforts by Garcetti to avoid convicting O.J. Simpson, which would have ended his political career. Pretty much every black voter in Los Angeles would have voted to remove Garcetti if O.J. was found guilty. Indeed, even after O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, Garcetti refused to prosecute him for perjury in the civil trial, even though it was clear O.J. Simpson lied several times. That&#8217;s how committed Garcetti was to keeping O.J. Simpson out of jail.
Again, anyone paying attention during this whole saga understood everything that was going on at the time. This is not new information. What is new is that, now that O.J. Simpson is dead — he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/o-j-simpson-dead-at-76-following-battle-with-cancer" target="_blank" rel="noopener">died yesterday</a> of cancer —  mainstream news outlets are just coming right out and admitting it. They&#8217;re acknowledging that O.J. Simpson was guilty, but that he simply couldn&#8217;t be convicted because of race politics. 
Here for example is a CNN journalist explaining on-camera yesterday that in 1995, a lot of black people loved to see a black man get away with murdering two white people. She catches herself mid-way through, but it&#8217;s clear what she&#8217;s saying. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 CNN celebrates verdict" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hL_t3wgdT6Y?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We&#8217;d have a much better understanding of today&#8217;s race politics, and how to put an end to it, if we could have admitted this back in 1995. A lot of people wanted to see a black man get away with murder. The two white people were simply collateral damage.
A professor named Marc Lamont Hill spelled this out <a href="https://x.com/marclamonthill/status/1778461905268412472" target="_blank" rel="noopener">very clearly</a> yesterday:
<blockquote>O.J. Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood. His acquittal for murder was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal system. But he’s still a monster, not a martyr.</blockquote>
In other words, you can kill white people without penalty. As long as the criminal legal system is racist — and people like Marc Lamont Hill believe it&#8217;s irredeemably, irreparably racist forever — then it&#8217;s fine to basically decapitate white people. That&#8217;s according to someone who collects a paycheck paid by the government of New York to teach the next generation.
Yesterday, Hill elaborated on his reasoning, essentially saying that O.J. had every right to kill his victims because a police officer involved in the case used a racial slur at some point in the past. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 Mark Lamont Hill" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jkc3uYKGUKs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You&#8217;ll notice there&#8217;s no regard whatsoever in Marc Lamont Hill&#8217;s mind for the two victims. Their families aren&#8217;t entitled to justice, all because a detective on their murder case used a racial slur. If you use the n-word, then any white person who&#8217;s tangentially related to you deserves to die. That&#8217;s basically what he&#8217;s saying. A lot of people thought this in 1995, but they didn&#8217;t say it in public. That&#8217;s changing.
The reason several mainstream outlets spent yesterday eulogizing O.J. Simpson as some kind of victim is that they approve of what he did. There&#8217;s no other way to spin it.
The New York Times, for example, <a href="https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1778446276440264921" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> that quote, &#8220;A jury in the murder trial &#8230;. cleared Mr. Simpson, but the case ruined his world.&#8221; They quickly edited that out of the piece when people pointed out that he stabbed two people to death and therefore &#8220;ruined&#8221; their worlds, too. 
For its part, NPR wrote the following <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/o-j-simpson-coverage-york-230410329.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headline</a> on something called &#8220;Threads:&#8221; &#8220;BREAKING NEWS: The football great Orenthal James Simpson, known as O.J., has died.&#8221;
The Associated Press, meanwhile, <a href="https://x.com/AP/status/1778583977718165987" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Legendary athlete, actor and millionaire: O.J. Simpson&#8217;s murder trial lost him the American dream.&#8221;
Those are all real headlines. Everyone knows exactly what&#8217;s going on here. The only way to get glowing headlines like this from the corporate media is if you kill people they don&#8217;t like. It&#8217;s the same reason The Washington Post <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50205592" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> that ISIS leader as an &#8220;austere religious scholar.&#8221; O.J. Simpson killed members of a disfavored demographic, so they&#8217;re mourning him as a victim, not the people he killed.
This kind of attitude was everywhere yesterday. There was no focus on the victims whatsoever. CBS News interviewed one of O.J.&#8217;s lawyers from the 1995 trial, named Carl Douglas. In the interview, he comes out and declares what he saw as a main benefit of the trial. Again, it had nothing to do with justice or finding the truth or the &#8220;real killers.&#8221;
Instead, it was about showing to the world that black lawyers can get defendants off, too. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 The Era of The Time" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZuocpqCpKXU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;And whatever you think of this verdict, for Black Americans, it was not speaking about O.J. Simpson per se.&#8221;
That about sums it up, straight from one of O.J.&#8217;s lawyers. The O.J. trial was not about O.J. Simpson. The trial was arguably the beginning, or at least a landmark moment on the way towards, our current era of racial insanity. The race hustlers of the time rallied around O.J. not because they thought he was innocent but because they saw him as an agent of revenge. And Democratic Party elites in Los Angeles like Gil Garcetti did everything they could to ensure O.J.&#8217;s acquittal so that he could serve that function.
But nobody was more explicit than CNN contributor Ashely Allison, a former senior advisor in the Obama White House. Listen to what she chose to say out loud on national television yesterday:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="014 CNN OJ Relatable To Black" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xTO8tcq_o00?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“He represented something for black Americans because it was two white people who’d been killed.” That’s what black Americans connected with, according to this woman. They felt affinity with O.J. because he brutally slaughtered white people. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud. Although, as we’ve seen, it’s hardly the quiet part anymore.
This mentality has metastasized over time, helped along by Barack Obama, leading to the rise of BLM, and culminating in Floyd and the 2020 riots, and then the post-Floyd era of DEI. Now, 30 years later, so-called &#8220;race relations&#8221; have deteriorated to the point that the race hustlers finally feel comfortable coming out and telling us what their motives were all along.
Yes, O.J. Simpson is dead. But the legacy of that trial, particularly the racial violence and distrust that it normalized, is still very much alive.

O. J. Simpson sits in Superior Court in Los Angele

The Media Says The Quiet Part Out Loud: O.J. Was Their Hero Because He Killed White People

Menu