Ep. 1444 - Why Critics Are Running Scared From My Movie
01:03:13 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, my movie Am I Racist is a hit at the box office, but that still has not prompted any mainstream critics to review the film. So far, there has been a near total blackout in the corporate press. Why? What are they so afraid of? We'll discuss. Also, the media has not tamped down its inciting rhetoric after Trump's second assassination attempt. If anything, they've ramped it up. And a woman who stabbed a toddler to death will not stand trial. Instead, she'll get treatment in a hospital.

And employers are increasingly complaining about their Gen Z employees. They say they're lazy, entitled, have no social skills. Is that true? And if so, why is it true? We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. ♪

The most crucial election of our lifetime is just 48 days away. You need the truth now more than ever, and this is where you get it for 47% off. At The Daily Wire, we deliver breaking news and the full story from conservative media's most trusted voices, the facts America needs and deserves. So join the fight now. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code FIGHT for 47% off your new annual membership.

You didn't vote for this recession, but you sure as heck pay for it at the pump at the grocery store. And with that growing stack of unpaid bills, if you're one of millions of Americans being crushed with financial debt right now, the solution is donewithdebt.com. Unlike some of the other guys, Done With Debt has created new aggressive strategies designed to get you out of debt permanently without bankruptcy or loans. Done With Debt stands between you and the bill collectors. They negotiate with your creditors to write off balances, cut interest, and stop penalties.

They have a plan to put more money in your pocket on month one and every month until your debt is gone. Best news is that Done With Debt is accepting new clients right now, but you need to hurry because some of their debt strategies are time sensitive and you don't want to miss out. Let Done With Debt hit the debt reset button for you and make your money yours again. But again, this is time sensitive, so you need to visit donewithdebt.com or call 1-888-322-1054 right now. Chat with one of their debt relief strategists for free. Go to donewithdebt.com. That's donewithdebt.com.

Well, aside from taking my word for it, there are a few different ways you can decide whether my new film, Am I Racist?, is worth seeing in theaters. You can look at the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, where we're sitting at 99% audience rating. What Rotten Tomatoes calls verified fresh. That means that 99% of the people who actually watched the movie, the verified audience, liked it.

So you can look at that, or you can look at the box office returns, which put us in the top five of all films in the genre released in the past decade, and top four overall in the box office this weekend.

Or you could watch the interviews and trailers and behind the scenes videos that are out there. But if you really want to know how effective the film is, there's an even better, much simpler option. You can just take a look at what professional mainstream movie critics are saying about the film. You can go to websites like Time and The New Yorker and IndieWire and Rolling Stone and The New York Times.

Washington Post, the AP, head over to their movie review section and search for Am I Racist? And what you'll find is absolutely nothing. None of these outlets have said a word about the film. In fact, as of today, there is not a single mainstream movie critic who has reviewed Am I Racist two days after the film's opening weekend. Now, as far as I can tell, Am I Racist is the only top five box office film that has not had a single mainstream critic review before.

by the end of its opening weekend. I am not aware of a single other case of this happening ever. So to get a sense of how unusual this is, consider a couple of the other movies that also debuted in theaters this weekend, like The Killer's Game, for example. Now, that was a movie that was playing in a thousand more theaters than our film. It also grossed $2.6 million against a budget of $30 million. For comparison, Am I Racist? grossed more than $4.5 million against a budget of $3 million.

So our movie performed a lot better, despite having a much smaller budget and appearing in fewer theaters. We also have a much higher audience score, and yet The Killers Game has an official critic score on Rotten Tomatoes coming in at around 38%. So critics didn't like it, but they reviewed it. There are more than 30 critic reviews for that film.

Meanwhile, the film called My Old Ass, which apparently is not a Biden biopic, also came out September 13th. It was only in seven theaters this weekend as part of a limited release. It made $170,000. So it didn't even rank in the box office top 10 this weekend at all. But it has an official Rotten Tomatoes critic score as well. And it has more than 85 critic reviews.

Now, if Am I Racist were a bad film, if we didn't succeed in doing what we set out to do in the film, then this probably wouldn't be happening. We'd be getting panned by every mainstream outlet. They've done that to a lot of other media and other films that are created by people outside of the Hollywood bubble. We're used to that kind of thing. And usually, if they have an opportunity to rip a piece of conservative entertainment, quote unquote, to shreds, they're more than happy to take advantage of that opportunity.

But they're not doing that here. Instead, they're ignoring Am I Racist entirely as if it doesn't exist. They're terrified to even mention a film that mocks the DEI industry because they know that the DEI industry can only survive if no one is allowed to question it. Also, our movie is actually good. And I think that's what scares them the most. And I know that sounds self-serving, you know, saying that critics aren't reviewing it because it's too good. Sounds like some grade A hardcore cope.

But in this case, it's true. And I invite any critic to challenge me on that point just by reviewing the film. So this is why they won't write about our film even to condemn it. It's the same approach we saw with What is a Woman, except it's even more flagrant this time. They can't hide behind the excuse that the film was only available on a streaming platform anymore. These mainstream reviewers, in this case, are deliberately ignoring a theatrical release in more than 1,500 theaters.

At the same time as I outlined last night on Twitter, we did receive a handful of reactions from independent movie critics when we set out screeners for the film back in mid-August. And many of the responses from these critics strongly suggested that the mere presence of the screener in their inbox had triggered a like full-on mental breakdown. One critic wrote, quote, you'd have to strap me to a chair like Malcolm McDowell to get me to watch this thing. Another responded with this, ew, take me off this list.

As for more mainstream outlets, some of them did indicate some potential interest in writing a review. One of those outlets was Variety, which actually wrote a pretty fair article covering our film's expansion into 1,500 theaters about a week ago. But they haven't reviewed the film. In fact, they wrote in an article that Daily Wire, quote, did not screen the movie for critics, which is an odd claim to make, especially since we sent Variety a screener of the film.

We asked them to correct the error, you know, claiming we didn't screen it for critics, because we did. We asked them to correct that in the article. They still haven't. Meanwhile, Rolling Stone was one of the first outlets to request a screener all the way back in July. We gave them a screener, but they still haven't published a review.

Which is too bad because I was really looking forward to their take. They went on a tirade about my last film, labeling it transphobic and so on. So I can't wait to see their meltdown over Am I Racist? Maybe that's still coming. We can only hope. But even while that's all going on, there are some independent critics who aren't so cowardly. Jeremy Johns is one of them. He has a large fan base on YouTube with about 2 million followers. He's probably one of the biggest film critics on YouTube.

if not the biggest. And he, at this point, is the single biggest in terms of platform independent reviewer who has reviewed our film. And I encourage you to go and watch the whole thing on his channel because he makes a lot of smart observations. It's a fair review. And here's part of it.

I'm gonna be 100%. There was a part of me that was like, maybe I should just skip this one. Just move on to next week's videos, call this weekend good and have that be that. But the fact that that entered my mind is kind of one of the points this movie makes. So at that point, I really felt I should talk about it. I do appreciate that. First off, Matt Walsh is surprisingly funny. I don't know, I just kind of didn't know that about him. I kind of got a glimpse of that when I saw that he crashed the Democratic National Convention in the name of promoting this movie. Come on.

That is funny. But there are scenarios and situations in this movie where he's talking to someone or a group. He has to think on his feet and I thought he did a really good job. I mean, there's one segment where they go to this small town. I don't know where it was. I don't know, but they start talking to the townsfolk and he starts, you know, cause he's still in character. He's like, what are you doing to decenter your whiteness?

He's never thought about that in his life. I mean, it's funny, but it also is a perspective of not everyone thinks like that. In fact, better said, most people don't think like that. That's kind of the point. Most people, black, white, Asian, Mexican, doesn't matter. When they wake up, they're not like, "Ah, how can I keep race in the forefront of my mind today?" - Now, the introduction to that review is maybe the most interesting part. It's clear that Jeremy Johns understood that by reviewing the film, he'd get a lot of backlash from the left.

And that's not because anyone on the left has actually seen the film. It's because activists on the left can't tolerate any kind of mockery of their ideology. They also can't tolerate somebody like me being acknowledged at all, especially in any sort of positive way. And they know that nothing they believe survives any scrutiny, certainly doesn't survive satire. That's the case with gender ideology, which is why they were so outraged by What Is Woman? And it's true of DEI as well.

The simplest thing to do if Jeremy Johns wanted to avoid this inevitable backlash would have been to just ignore the film like everybody else has. And then he wouldn't have a horde of angry, unhappy people attacking him on social media as they are right now. But Johns decided that the film looked interesting and so he reviewed it. In fact, he says that his hesitation about reviewing the film ultimately made it more interesting to him and made him feel more sort of obliged to review it.

And that makes sense. Forbidden topics are more interesting than the usual rote corporate propaganda. And I also know someone who's in the commentary space that if you're in the commentary world and there's a topic that even you are a little bit nervous to talk about, then kind of as Jeremy Johns pointed out, that's all the more reason why you should. That's a pretty good indication that this is the thing we should be talking about.

So for making that decision, Johns has been subjected to a smear campaign over the last 48 hours. A guy named Jeff Zhang, for example, wrote, quote, Mainstream criticism is in pretty dire straits, but most critics can still recognize dog whistle tripe when they see it. Also, Jeremy Johns hasn't leveled up his film analysis once in almost two decades. For the record, Jeff Zhang calls himself a film critic. And here he's demeaning another critic for simply reviewing a film.

Jeff Zang has not seen Am I Racist? But he's quite sure that it's dog whistle tripe. And then he launches into a personal attack on someone who has seen the film and is attacking them for seeing it. And then for good measure, Jeff Zang laments the state of mainstream criticism. I mean, it's like the least self-aware post ever made on X, which of course is really saying something. Zang illustrates a major underlying problem with the movie industry very well, which is that the role of the film critic

has changed a lot in recent years. They now think that their job is to act as gatekeepers, as sort of a barrier to entry, to enforce ideological orthodoxy, not to just review films. And in that sense, film critics are no different from the swarm of online left-wing activists who relentlessly attacked Jeremy Johns all day yesterday. There were hundreds of posts accusing him of embracing full-blown racism,

accusing him of being a sellout, taking money from the Daily Wire. You know, we must be paying him off if he is reviewing the film. And Reddit was especially furious. There were posts saying that John was openly racist and fascist and was preparing to become a right-wing grifter. Matt Jarboe, who runs some kind of film podcast, wrote, quote, Midlife crisis Jeremy Johns is not the villain origin story I was expecting.

Yes, for reviewing a film, a film critic is having a midlife crisis. He's becoming a villain. For literally doing the thing that is his job. It's like going back into the kitchen at IHOP and seeing someone make pancakes and saying, oh, well, that guy's making pancakes. He must be in a midlife crisis. No, that's his job. It's what he's paid to do. It's his job.

So this is how they're enforcing the near total blackout of mainstream reviews for Am I Racist? They don't want anyone to even mention the film. Now, fortunately, not every reviewer is going along with it, as we covered. Not just Jeremy Johns. The folks at Film Threat also just posted a lengthy and then quite interesting review of the film. Here's part of it. The way he trolled these people was on a level of Borat. It was like Sacha Baron Cohen, the way he was trolling these people, man. And...

I feel like, look, man, if a very diverse audience saw this movie together, they would laugh together. They would enjoy this movie together. I don't think there will be people sitting there in a huff and a puff angry that he dared to tackle this topic. I think everyone would just enjoy themselves and laugh at it because he points out how ridiculous all of this is.

And I think he conveys that pretty well in the film, especially the Jesse Smollett thing, which I'm sure we'll talk about. So it'd be interesting to see what Jeff Zhang and Matt Jarboe, whoever those people are, think of Film Threat's review. Is everyone at Film Threat having a midlife crisis too because they reviewed a movie? I guess so. Is that guy that you just heard speaking there, is he a fascist white supremacist?

for laughing about the Justice Blatt scene, even though he is a black guy? Well, of course, the Matt Jarboes of the world would have no problem saying that yes, he is a black white supremacist for enjoying a movie that I made. Now these kinds of mob tactics stop working the moment people stand up to them. As soon as people disregard the activists and actually watch the movie or watch some of these independent reviews, then they immediately realize how absurd the smears really are. That's why their real goal has been to prevent anyone from seeing the movie in the first place.

They don't want theaters to even show the film. And at least one theater in Northern California relented to those demands a few days ago. The Del Oro Theater slash Prime Cinemas in California posted this message on September 12th. This is a day before the movie came out. And it is a paragraph that belongs in like...

the museum of cowardice, if such a thing exists somewhere. It should be a monument to left-wing censorship to show future generations how desperately the left seeks to censor anything, even a film that they find objectionable. Quote, here's what it says, the statement. Due to the strong reactions from our community for and against the film and concerns for the well-being of our staff, we will not be playing the film Am I Racist as originally intended.

Please know that it was not our intention to cause such division by playing this film. We noticed that many of the theaters in the Sacramento area were booked to play this film. And quite frankly, this reaction caught us off guard. The safety of our staff is our number one priority. Please accept our apologies. So this, just to review, this is a theater apologizing for carrying a movie that 1,500 other theaters are also carrying.

So you get the usual vague claim that people's safety is in danger if they screen a film that left-wing activists don't like. And in this context, it's a pretty ironic claim if you've seen the film. I mean, I'm not going to spoil anything, but suffice to say, this is such a stock complaint of insane left-wing activists that it found its way into a prominent scene towards the beginning of Am I Racist? So me being in the room with people while making the movie apparently threatened their physical safety.

as we see in the movie. And then the movie itself also threatens the physical safety of people. But as usual, that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In the movie, it's a laugh line, actually, because of how melodramatic and neurotic the claim is. No one on the right is threatening anyone because of this film, which doesn't even make any sense. I mean, in the statement, the theater says, well, because of the strong reactions for and against, what do you mean for?

Strong reactions for that would be people who are just excited to see the movie. What you're worried about violence from them or they say, I love this movie so much. I'm going to blow up the theater in celebration. Like what? What? How does how does people liking the movie create a danger to the theater? I want to understand that.

Maybe there was going to be such a rush of people. Maybe it was going to be like Black Friday at Walmart. There was going to be such a rush of people in to see the movie that it was going to stampede that would harm the employees. Maybe that's it. I'd like to think that there was that level of interest in the movie. No, what they're really suggesting in that theater in Northern California, if that statement means anything at all, is that left-wing activists might get violent if the film is shown. That's what they're actually saying.

That's the implicit statement they're making, whether they meant to say it or not. What they're really saying is that if they show the movie, left-wing activists might harm theater employees.

That's how enraged these activists are all because of our film. They're furious because of a documentary that allows the foremost fake experts in DEI to speak at length without any unfair editing whatsoever. And they're enraged by this conceit for a few reasons. One of them is that the modern left is intellectually bankrupt. They can't defend any of their nonsense with an actual argument. So they have to resort to threats and hysteria. The other reason that they're furious is that right now, you know, we are in the Daily Wire, we are insurgents in the movie industry.

The left really believes that they own the art form of film, that it's theirs, that this is something that they take ownership of. Which is why I've even gotten comments, which I think are very funny, calling me a grifter for making this movie. So in their world, any conservative who makes a movie must be a con artist running some kind of scam. Because it can't possibly be that

You know, we love film too, and we want to use it to tell our own stories. That we just, this is an art form that we want to participate in because we love this art form. Now, that can't be it. Now, we're up to something here. This is, we have ulterior motives. It's just not something that activists can even consider within the realm of possibility. But of course, it's true.

The film industry has been dominated by one ideology for so long. These people have come to expect that every film and every artistic work in general will mirror their worldview. They feel entitled to it now. The left in Hollywood have maintained a monopoly for a very long time. They've successfully pressured distributors and studios into producing the same narratives over and over again, all in the service of weeding out any semblance of competition. But after the success of I'm a Racist, it's clear that

Whether mainstream critics and publications want to hide from it or not, whether they like it or not, competition has finally arrived. And by the way, it's not going anywhere. Now let's get to our five headlines.

You know what's worse than forgetting to mute yourself on a Zoom call while ranting about the latest leftist insanity? Browsing the internet without ExpressVPN. Here's the disturbing reality. Your internet service provider can see every single website you visit, and they're legally allowed to sell that information to advertisers. But

There's a simple way to fight back, ExpressVPN. I use it every day and here's why you should too. First, it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure encrypted servers. Your ISP can't see your browsing history, so they can't sell to advertisers. Second, it hides your IP address, making it extremely difficult for third parties to track what you're doing online. Take that, Silicon Valley snoopers. Third, it's incredibly easy to use. Just open the app.

Click one button and you're protected. Finally, it works on all your devices, phones, laptops, tablets, you name it. There's a reason it's rated number one by tech reviewers like CNET and The Verge. Stay private whether you're at home or out investigating the latest school board controversy. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com slash Walsh. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Walsh to get three extra months for free with my exclusive link expressvpn.com slash Walsh.

Well, it's been two days, just two days, since a second assassination attempt on President Trump. I want to read the lead article on CNN.com as of this morning. This was their main story on the page. Here's what it says. Ex-President Donald Trump responded to a second apparent assassination attempt that he blames on incendiary political rhetoric by inflaming the situation even more.

When a bullet grazed his ear in a horrific shooting that killed a rally-goer in July, Trump initially acted like a changed man, telling the Washington Examiner's Selena Zito that he had a chance to bring the country and the world together, although that aspiration did not last any longer than the opening paragraphs of his convention speech. After the Secret Service thwarted a gunman who apparently lain in wait for the ex-president at one of his... Apparently lain in wait. Is that the right...

Apparently laid in wait. Apparently laid in wait. I guess. I don't know. I'm stupid. Anyway, that's what it says. The gunman who lain in wait for ex-president in one of his Florida golf courses Sunday, Trump's reaction was different. He accused President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris of inviting assassins to target him when they warned that he is a threat to democracy. He told Fox News Digital on Monday without evidence that the alleged shooter would be would be shooter. Believe the rhetoric of Biden and Harris. And he acted on it.

It's called the enemy from within, he said, using a familiar trope of totalitarian leaders. And then it goes on and on. Okay, so CNN is not trying to hide it clearly. It's been two days and they're doubling down on exactly the kind of rhetoric that got Trump almost killed twice. Because here's the important point, and I made this point on Gutfeld last night, that we keep hearing that the attempted assassins in both cases were crazy. And maybe they are crazy, but

The point is that trying to shoot Trump is not crazy. That's not a crazy thing to do. Okay. That's not the crazy part anyway, trying to shoot Trump. It's not crazy to try to shoot Trump. What is crazy, okay, is believing that Trump is a totalitarian dictator, you know, a fascist despot, Hitler reincarnated. That's the crazy part, is believing that.

Cuz that's a crazy thing. Trump is none of those things, it's crazy to believe it. But if you believe that, so if you've crossed the crazy threshold and you believe that crazy idea, you believe what CNN is saying about Trump, what all the entire left is saying about Trump, then trying to kill Trump from there is logical, right? From that crazy starting point, trying to kill Trump is logical. Because if he's Hitler,

Well, of course you would try to kill him. Who wouldn't kill Hitler? So the left is using rhetoric, branding Trump in a certain way that if believed, if you believe it, if you're crazy enough to believe it, then it makes the case for assassinating him, right? It's just like, I mean, imagine doing this to anybody else. Imagine you don't like your next door neighbor

And so you go around telling people, including every, you know, any crazy person you find on the street corner, you go around telling them, you know, you go to some other person, you say, well, your neighbor, you tell your neighbor, your neighbor's name is Jim. And you go up to some guy, Bob, and you tell Bob that, you know, Jim, he's a he's a he's an evil guy. He's he's planning. He's got designs to blow up the world. He's a supervillain. He's building a nuclear bomb in his basement. He's in all these things.

It's a crazy claim, right, about your neighbor Jim. And Bob is crazy if he believes the claim. But once he believes it, then it's like the next logical step. Well, there you go. Yeah, he's going to go try to kill Jim because at that point it's self-defense. It's like this guy's going to, he's a threat. He's a danger. And my only point is just to emphasize that the, just how, I mean, incendiary doesn't even begin to describe it.

And usually calling rhetoric harmful, I'm hesitant to call rhetoric harmful because that's something the left does all the time to shut down. That's a tactic used by people who are trying to shut down speech. But sometimes rhetoric can be harmful. I mean, defamation is harmful. That's why you can get sued for it. And going around and saying that your political opponent

is Hitler and that he's plotting to destroy democracy and all that kind of, it's, it is harmful. And we're seeing why, because if people believe it and you get enough people to believe it, of course, they're going to start trying to kill him. Like, of course, this was always inevitable, you know, which is why it wasn't even, I mean, the first assassination attempt was shocking to see it out of the blue like that. But the fact that they tried to kill him, the fact of it, that's not shocking at all. Um,

In fact, everyone, I think when you first heard about the assassination attempt, I mean, again, it is a startling, upsetting thing. But I don't think anyone thought, well, I can't believe anyone tried to kill him. Like, of course they did. I mean, demonizing him to this extent for 10 years, of course, of course, if you do that to anyone, eventually people are going to try to kill him. And

Just to kind of demonstrate how relentless this narrative has been, there are a lot of montages floating around of the left's demonization of Trump. This one was posted originally, I think, by David Harris Jr. on X. And let's just watch a little bit of this. I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be.

People need to start taking to the streets. This is a dictator. You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. Enemies of the state. Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. Do something about your dad's immigration practices, you feckless. When they go low, we kill them. How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck? Biggest terror threat in this country.

country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. I thought he should have punched him in the face. I said, even if you lost, he insulted your wife. He came down the escalator and called Mexicans rapists and murderers. He said, well, what do you think I should have done? I said, I think you should have punched him in the face and then gotten out of the race. You would have been a hero.

i'd like to punch him in the face i said if we're in high school i'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him punch some people in the face when was the last time an actor assassinated a president they're still gonna have to go out and put a bullet in donald trump and that's a fact look as his character is stabbed to death is john wilkes booth when you need him

I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House. A Missouri State Senator is under investigation by the Secret Service after saying she hopes President Trump is assassinated. I will go and take Trump out tonight. And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.

And you push back on them. Tell them they're not welcome anywhere. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be, everyone should take note of that on both levels, that this isn't, they're not going to let up, and they should not. If you think

Now, by the way, you know, you could not compile a montage like that in the reverse because you're not going to find you won't find nearly enough clips of conservatives using that kind of language about Biden or Harris or any other Democrat politician. You'll find very harsh criticism of Biden and Harris from conservatives. You'll find it from me, you know.

But explicit calls to violence and that sort of thing, it's pretty much exclusively Democrats who do that. It just is. And they get it. They get the violence that they call for. And they haven't slowed down in the wake of the second attempt. Here is Hillary Clinton yesterday. It's just a day after. And here's what Hillary Clinton had to say.

And I don't understand why it's so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is. You know, the late great journalist, Harry Evans, you know, one time said that, you know, journalists should, you know, really try to achieve objectivity. And by that, he said, I mean, they should cover the object. Well, the object in this case is Donald Trump.

his demagoguery, his danger to our country and the world and stick with it. So it's hard to know where to even begin with that. First, a day after someone tried to kill Trump again, her message is that he's a danger to our country and the world. So she is again directly calling for an assassination.

That's what that is when you say that he is a danger to the country and the world you are asking Once again, you are asking someone to kill him. You are telling someone to go kill him. That's what you're doing Second her complaint is that somehow the press has not been consistent in communicating that Trump is a danger allegedly Meanwhile, that is the one single message the press has hammered on for like ten years Okay, they've said it every day all day for almost a decade and yet it's not consistent enough. I

Just imagine what kind of alternate universe you have to live in to listen to that from Hillary Clinton and take it seriously. Hillary Clinton's criticism of the press is that they haven't demonized Trump enough. They've been too nice to him. They haven't communicated that he's a danger. They've communicated it 10 million times, but really they need to communicate it 20 million times or it's not enough.

And then third point I want to say about this is that we saw on the screen that Hillary has a new memoir coming out this week, which I guess is why she was being interviewed to hawk her new memoir. Hasn't this woman published like 15 memoirs at this point? How many memoirs does one person need? And who's buying these? I cannot imagine why in God's name anyone would want to buy the memoir of any politician really, but especially Hillary Clinton. Now, if it was actually a tell-all memoir, I mean like a real tell-all memoir,

If she was telling all, I mean, this is the kind of memoir that had a chapter like titled What Really Happened to Epstein? Again, it was that kind of thing. Then I'd buy that book. I mean, that's I'm first in line to buy that book. But Hillary Clinton, she does have plenty of fascinating stories to tell. I don't doubt that. But she's not telling any of those stories, which means that her memoirs are crushingly boring. And yet she's written multiples of them.

Is there somebody out there who has the entire Hillary Clinton memoir collection? Like the Hillary Clinton box set? Somebody has an entire shelf full of Hillary Clinton memoirs in their home? Imagine that. There's also this I'll play, we'll talk about briefly. It's another thing from that same interview with Hillary Clinton. I'm loathe to play two clips from Hillary, but I will because she also had this to say about Hillary.

the problem of misinformation. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda and whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence. So here's here they have found their kind of end run around the First Amendment. This is what they believe

What the left believes is their brilliant sort of get out of the First Amendment free card where they can just label it misinformation and then it doesn't count anymore. But there are two problems with that, and they're both obvious. The first is who determines what qualifies as misinformation? And this is especially a problem for people on the left, right? To answer that is a problem for them because...

They don't even believe in objective truth to begin with. Something that is misinformation is something that is not objectively true. That's misinformation. Disinformation would be not objectively true, and the person who is saying it knows that it's not objectively true. Misinformation just means it's not objectively true. And whether maybe it's intentional deception, maybe it's just someone's mistake. But either way, misinformation means that it's not true. So in order for anyone to

I mean, if anyone can be a trusted authority on what is objectively true, there has to, to begin with, actually be an objective truth for them to be judging the supposed misinformation against. Except that people in life would say there is no objective truth and we all have our own truth. And your truth is different than my truth. And something might be true to you, but not true to me. That's what they believe. They're relativists.

So in their worldview, you can't even call anything misinformation. The most you can say is, well, what that person said isn't true for everybody. But you can't say that it's true for nobody because it's true for the person who said it. And then, of course, the second big problem is that if something is misinformation, even if it is, you have the right to

say things that aren't true. I mean, unless it's defamatory, slanderous in the legal sense, you don't have a right to do that. But if you're giving a perspective on the world that isn't true, I mean, you shouldn't be. You shouldn't be saying things that aren't true. But

uh, there's nothing in the first amendment that carves this out and says that, well, uh, you have the right to only say things that are true. That's not in there. Like you, you have the right to speak and give your opinion and, um, and, and that's it. Uh, and, you know, and, and I'm not even saying that everybody's opinions are valid. I don't know. A lot of people have opinions that are really stupid and not valid, but, uh,

And I don't think that all opinions deserve to be respected or taken seriously, but you do have the right to express your opinion, as stupid as it might be. Here's a story from WKYC. Bianca Ellis, the 33-year-old woman accused of killing three-year-old Julian Wood, has been ruled incompetent to stand trial following a 20-day evaluation at North Coast Behavioral Health. The results of the evaluation were announced during a hearing Friday,

However, the doctor handling Ellis's case said that there was a substantial probability of restoration to competency within the statutory timeframe if provided with a course of treatment. Ellis will receive inpatient treatment at North Coast Behavioral Health, and then she will be given a medication in order to be returned to

to the jail once she's either competent to stand trial or unable to be restored to competency. Okay, so Bianca Ellis is the monster who stabbed a three-year-old child to death in a grocery store parking lot. You may remember that story. She's also infamous for not only committing that heinous crime, but also smiling and laughing in court right in front of the mother of the child that she murdered. So this woman is a demon. She's pure evil. She...

I mean, I can't say everything that I want to say about her. I certainly can't say what I wish would happen to her. I can't even go into all those details. Just all of the worst forms of suffering a human being can experience, she deserves to experience. And I hope she does experience. I hope that she suffers greatly. And we can say that. You can say that as a Christian. You know why? Because it's justice. Wanting, you know...

great injustice to be met with suffering, that is your hunger for justice, right? That's what that is. And it is good to want justice. We should want justice. And murdering a three-year-old child is, well, I have three kids who are around that age. Of course, you don't need to have kids to understand how utterly evil that is. But when you do, you can't help but put yourself in the shoes of the parents who

and imagine if it was your own child, and it's just unthinkable. I mean, this woman is, she's a beast. She's a sadistic, soulless ogre. And now she's been ruled incompetent to stand trial. Now, yeah, there's a stipulation that she could be ruled competent in the future. Apparently, they're sending her off to a hospital for treatment. And if the treatment is judged to have worked within a certain timeframe, then she'll stand trial. But right now she's incompetent and

magically after being treated, she'll suddenly be cured, right? And then they can put her on trial. But if that doesn't work, then she'll never stand trial. I mean, that's a possible outcome here is that she'll never stand trial. She'll be ruled unable to be rehabilitated or whatever and mentally rehabilitated, and she'll never stand trial. And then she'll go back to the hospital, presumably. So the whole thing's a joke. It's a sick joke. This woman does not need treatment.

She doesn't have a disease. She is evil. And evil exists in the world. Evil people do evil things. And these days we look at evil things that people do and we say, well, why would someone do that? You know, they must have some kind of illness because I can't understand why anybody would do such a terrible thing. And so they must be sick. They must be sick in the sense of having some kind of illness. No, they do it because they're evil. Like it's not that complicated. It's awful.

It's incomprehensible in terms of the suffering that it causes, but it's not complicated. She's evil. Why did she kill the child? She killed the child because she wanted to kill the child. And I don't mean that in any kind of flippant way. She killed the child because she wanted to kill the child. So the motive is clear. Why did she want to? Well, because evil people enjoy doing evil things. And...

I know it's we don't like to think about that. We don't want to stare into the dark heart of the sort of person who would find joy in murdering a three year old child. We don't want it's a very it's a scary, disturbing thing to think about and reflect on. I don't want to think about it or reflect on it, but we have to.

And we're left with the reality that she gets some kind of perverse pleasure out of inflicting that kind of suffering on innocent people. How could she get pleasure out of it? Well, I can't understand that mindset. I can't relate to it. Neither can you. But that doesn't mean that she's incompetent. It just means that she's evil at a level that normal, decent people cannot comprehend. And what should we do with people who are evil at that level?

Well, we should swiftly escort them off the stage. The stage of life, I mean. They should be removed from existence. Legally. Okay? I'm saying that a fair trial should be held, and they should be convicted if they're guilty. And then within 24 to 48 hours, they should be legally executed by legitimate authorities empowered to carry out the sentence. And as I implied earlier, I don't think it needs to be painless either, personally. The idea that execution should be painless is silly, in my opinion.

I think the woman deserves to feel pain. In fact, she can never in this life even experience all of the pain she deserves to feel. So we certainly don't need to minimize her pain or discomfort. I think it's a ridiculous, another one of these ridiculous modern notions that you could have someone who's so awful, so barbaric that they deserve to be executed, but it's really important. Oh, we had to do it in a painless way. Why? Why? Does she not deserve to feel pain? Of course she deserves it.

She deserves to feel pain. That is justice. I've said this many times. Justice is giving people what they are due. That is justice. That is the definition of justice, to give people what they are due. And she is due pain and death. That's what she's due. And she should be given what she is due legally and legitimately. That's what the justice system should do. Should look at someone like this and say, what you deserve, what you are due is pain and death, and you're going to get it.

In fact, the whole concept of being too incompetent to stand trial is a misnomer in my view. I mean, it makes no sense. It's absurd. It's like, you know, is this woman incompetent in a certain sense? Yeah, I'm sure she is because competent people don't murder children. And what I mean is that she's obviously an extremely dysfunctional person with a very twisted mind.

And that's true of anybody who commits a deeply evil act. These are not people with healthy minds. These are not competent, normal, functional people. If they were, they wouldn't have done these things. But so what? I mean, the criminal justice system exists for these kinds of people. That's why we have trials. It's why we have punishment. It's why we have jails. It's why we have execution chambers. It's for people who are not competent enough to live as decent, civilized people.

And so the fact that they are not decent, civilized people, that doesn't mean that, oh, well, no, we can't put them on trial. You see what I'm saying? The trials exist for people like that. That's why we have this. Oh, no, she's too dysfunctional to go to jail. What? What do you think it's there for? Exactly that. For people who are too dysfunctional in the extreme, in a violent extreme, are so dysfunctional that they cannot be in society anymore.

And if it's to the greatest extreme, as it is with this person, then even jail is not enough because it would not be justice. And the other thing about people like this is that if eventually she does stand trial and go to prison for the rest of her life,

And this, by the way, I think is one of the best arguments for the death penalty. And it's one of the things that convinced me because, as I've said in the past, I used to be kind of anti-death penalty and I've changed my mind on it, you know, in the last several years. But one of the things that brought me over to the pro side is thinking about the fact that, well, if you don't have the death penalty,

What do you do with the worst kinds of people? The people who commit the most heinous crimes? People that kill children? What do you do with them? Well, you put them in prison. But the problem is that they are so terrible and they are so barbaric and what they've done is so evil that even the prison population will reject them. And so then either you're taking this person and just throwing them into general population, which is basically a death sentence, and only you're just letting nature take its course.

Or, but we don't do that. So then the other option is to put them in protective custody for the rest of their lives. And what that means is then society, and by that I mean the taxpayers, are now actually paying extra. We're making extra effort and paying more money as taxpayers to take care of this person and keep them alive and to protect them from the other prisoners for the rest of their lives because what they've done is so heinous that they can't even be around other murderers.

And that I find to be, that's perverse. It's like, that is unjust. It's unfair, I mean, most of all to the victims, the families of the victims, but it's unfair to society. You can't go to society and say, you know what? Okay, well, here's the price tag for keeping people in prison. Okay, and we all know that you gotta have prison, so we gotta be willing to pay for that. I'm more than willing to pay the tab for people going to prison.

But but then but then we're saying, OK, but and here's here's the here's the bonus. Here's the extra amount you need to pay in order to keep the worst people on the planet alive. And to that, I say, no, we just can't. Like, if you're so terrible that we have to pay extra to keep you alive in prison, then no, then that should that should be your ticket out of out of here. And, you know.

And if you wanted to say, okay, well then, yeah, just leave them in the general population and whatever. They got to deal with the consequences of their actions. You know, I'd be fine with that if the only argument against that is that it creates chaos in the prison system and puts prison guards in danger as well. So, you know, so then you're left with, you know, this is why we have the death penalty. This is why we have capital punishment for people like this. Man, have you heard of Rose Sparks? This dual action prescription merges the powerhouse ingredients found in generic Viagra and Cialis

sildenafil and taldalafil into one formidable treatment. But it's not merely about the ingredients in the medication, it's how you're taking it. That's why Rose Sparks are designed to dissolve under your tongue. That's huge because dissolvable treatment hits your bloodstream faster than old school pills. Rose Sparks keeps you present with your partner instead of waiting for a pill to work. Rose Sparks leverages the benefits of sublingual administration, meaning the tablet dissolves under your tongue

This method allows for fast absorption directly into your bloodstream, bypassing the digestive system. The result, quicker onset of action, reducing the wait time typically associated with traditional pills. Plus, to Dalaville, the active ingredients, Cialis, last in the system for up to 36 hours.

So when the mood is right, you'll be ready without another dose. To get $15 off your first order and find out if prescription RoSparks are right for you, connect with a provider at ro.co slash walsh. That's ro.co slash walsh for $15 off your first order. Compounded drugs are permitted to be prescribed under federal law but are not FDA approved and do not undergo FDA safety effectiveness or manufacturing review. Only available if prescribed after an online consultation with a provider.

With the most crucial election of our lifetime just 48 days away, you need the truth now more than ever. That's why we're offering 47% off new DailyWire Plus memberships.

because once again, the mainstream media is proving why you can't trust them. Case in point, an unprecedented second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, and here we are less than 48 hours later with virtual silence from the national news media. It's the same old story. They don't want you to know what's really happening. But here at The Daily Wire, we cover the truth, giving you the breaking news and the full story that the left-wing media continues to ignore. We deliver the facts America desperately needs and deserves.

Now more than ever, we need access to the truth. We're making it easier than ever to get it. So go to dailywire.com/subscribe and use code FIGHT for that whopping 47% off your new Daily Wire Plus membership. That's dailywire.com/subscribe, code FIGHT. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, we turn to a new study that reveals something that will surprise no one. The New York Post reports, quote, "Gen Z employees are entitled to easily offended, lazy, and generally unprepared for the workplace.

According to their new bosses, the dismal assessment of workers born between 1996 and 2010 comes in a poll of 966 business leaders across the country taken last month by the online education magazine intelligent.com. Survey found 75% of execs felt most of the recent college grads they hired were unsuccessful. 60% said at least some of them had to be fired. The supervisors who ranged from C-suite execs and business owners to senior and human resource managers at companies with more than 10 employees said that they'll refrain from hiring Gen Z workers in the coming year.

Quote, with Gen Z, they've got a ton of access to information, a lot of different content, news sources, and influences, said Hugh Wynn, chief education and career development advisor for Intelligent and a former Fortune 500 hiring manager. So when they go into a company that has more traditional norms, you get a situation where it doesn't always mesh, he told the Post. About 70%, 17% of leaders believe Gen Z, who range in age from their teens to about 28, is often too difficult to manage, and 39% said they have poor communication skills.

Jessen James, an international entrepreneur, business mentor, and speaker, said some Gen Zers struggle to articulate themselves, don't look you in the eye, and don't project their voices. They lack charisma and personality skills, he told the Post, adding, I don't feel that they are in tune with what it takes to impress others.

Now keep in mind, by the way, that many Zoomers, especially the younger half of that generation, have spent all day on their phones every day of their lives practically since birth. Most of their communication and engagement with the outside world has been facilitated by the phone. So it's no wonder that they struggle to relate and engage in person. You don't need to have personality skills on your phone.

You don't need to have a personality at all, really, when you're on social media. You're constructing an image that maybe bears no resemblance, really, to your real personality. So you cannot give your child a phone, invite them to spend every waking hour of their day staring at the phone, and then scratch your head and wonder why they grew into adults with no social skills or personalities. It's inevitable.

We'll return to that point in a moment, reading on, quote, James has seen what he calls snowflake-ism, some Gen Zers crumbling under even a little pressure. It's almost like you have to walk on eggshells around them, being super sensitive when managing them in case you offend them, upset them, or push them too far, he said. Some 20-somethings have even brought a parent with them to job interviews for support and

Corporate environments and office culture have relaxed in recent years when noted and are viewed differently between generations. But even with a more laid-back office environment, recent college grads don't dress professionally and don't use appropriate language for work, 19% of those surveyed said. About 20% of respondents said Gen Zers are often late to work. 15% said they frequently hand assignments in late. The younger generation is also more likely to use up their sick days than their older colleagues, recent studies have found. Side note,

on the sick day thing is, and you know, this will be unpopular with, especially with younger people, but you shouldn't be using sick days. Okay. I've used sick days maybe twice in seven years. And in both of those cases, because I lost my voice and I couldn't speak, you know, you can't blame me for that. It's impossible to do a podcast when you can't speak. And, and even then I still, and anyone who watches has been watching the show for a while, you know, this, I still came into the office and recorded a video with subtitles and

when I lost my voice, if you recall. But generally speaking, again, I know this is unpopular, but sick days are for children, okay? They're for kids in school who are trying to stay home so they don't have to take a test that day. Like with rare exception, taking a sick day as an adult should be pretty embarrassing for you. Calling your boss and saying, sorry, I can't come in today, my tummy hurts, is humiliating. You need to be at work, okay? Adults don't have time to be sick.

They don't have time for it. That's that's I was just having this this conversation with my kids recently, actually, because I was I was kind of under the weather and my kids were aware of that. And they said, well, so why are you going to work? I said, because I don't have time to be sick. OK, I don't know. I can't be. I don't have time. But you are sick. Yeah, but I don't have time for it. So it's like I'm operating as though I'm not.

Finishing up the article, quote, but many bosses are trying to tame the immature hires, even mandating office etiquette training. 54% of the company leaders surveyed said they offer the training and many mandate it for new hires and a quarter of them specifically require it for Gen Z recruits. So the fundamental problem for Gen Zers in the workplace is that many of them, not all, but many, have never really been introduced to, and this is really what it comes down to, they've never been introduced to a concept called obligation.

otherwise known as responsibilities or duties. They are failing in the workplace because work is all about fulfilling your responsibilities, even if you don't want to or don't feel like it, even if it's stressful or difficult, even if it makes you feel bad, even if you're anxious about it, even if you're feeling depressed, even if you're whatever, you still have to do your job. And being at whatever you do for a living, being at a job is to be in a place where the main thing...

Yes, your value in that place depends on whether or not you are performing the tasks that you're supposed to perform. And that doesn't mean that your value as a person, as a human being is dependent on that. But your value in the job is entirely dependent on whether or not you're performing the tasks that you're supposed to perform. And that is the first and really only thing that matters. And that's the environment you're in when you're in the workplace, right?

Where it's always like, what have you done for me lately? What are you doing? That's what I care about. And that was always going to be an environment that's very difficult for a lot of people that were raised the way that the kids are raised today. Perhaps the number one skill required to be a functional adult, much less a successful one, is the ability to do things you don't want to do. And to not only do them, but do them well.

This is a facet of adult life that is so basic, it's so fundamental that in previous generations, it didn't even need to be articulated, right? Nobody would have even needed to explain this to you. But these days we have multiple generations, not just Gen Z, this applies to many millennials as well, who really do struggle with even the concept that they should have to do things they don't want to do and fulfill obligations that are not fun to fulfill. For them in their world, they should be able to get out of anything simply by saying, well, this makes me feel bad.

The idea of forging ahead and doing what must be done in spite of how you feel is foreign to them. Successful adults know that you can't let feelings guide you. You have to act and do what you need to do and the feelings will follow behind. You can't wait until you feel happy and then act. You act first and eventually you'll find that you also feel happy. Happiness is a byproduct of a well-lived life. It is not the starting point. It's not the entryway. Unsuccessful and dysfunctional adults try to flip this around. They insist that they must feel happy first and then they'll act.

But you can't conjure happiness out of the ether like that. You can't sit around waiting to feel it. The more you sit around waiting, the more your life falls apart around you and the more unhappy you are as a result of that. So it's a vicious cycle that never ends. Many people in Gen Z struggle with this concept, but that's not entirely their own fault. It's the job of parents to convey this message to their children. My own kids struggle with this, as all kids do.

And so sometimes, you know, every parent has heard this. I'll tell my kids to do something, clean your room, do the dishes, whatever. And sometimes you'll get the response, but I don't want to. And for a child, this is a logical rebuttal, right? They don't want to complete a certain task and therefore they shouldn't have to. This is how their mind works. And I was just having this conversation with my four-year-old recently. And I told her to clean up her room. And this was her answer, well, I don't want to. And I'm explaining to her, well,

You don't want to, but you're still going to. You need to, even if you don't want to. And as I'm talking to her, I can tell, I can see in her face that she really is, she's struggling to understand that concept. She doesn't quite understand. It's actually a disconnect here because she's four. And so for her, it's like, well, wait a second, but I don't want it. What do you mean I should do? But I don't want to. Why should I have to do a thing I don't want to do?

And this is one of the great struggles as a parent is to get this message across to your kids. It's up to me as the parent to help them understand that just because they don't want to do it doesn't mean they don't have to do it. Nobody wants to clean their room, yet the room needs to be cleaned. So we're at an impasse. What must be done and what you want to do are not aligned. And whatever that happens, the former must win out. And it's my job as a parent to teach my children this.

If you don't teach your children, they will grow into adults who have the mentality of children. They won't make it in the workforce. They won't make it in life generally. And many older people did not instill these life lessons in their kids. And now they sit around complaining about the generation that they failed to properly raise. That's what it really comes down to. And that is why these Gen Zers in the workforce and their parents are all today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed.

Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. Never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn. I'm on this journey. I'm going to sort this out. I need to go deeper undercover.

Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certification. What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. This is more for you than this for you. Is America inherently racist? The word inherent is challenging there. I'm going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. America is racist to its bones. So inherently. Yeah. This country is a piece of shit.

White folks. White trash. White supremacy. White woman. White boy. Is there a black person around here? There's a black person right here. Does he not exist? Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. Never be too careful. In theaters now. Rated PG-13.