Ep. 1446 - Democrats Set Out To Ban Memes to Protect Their Power
56:34 Share

Today on the Matt Wall Show, Gavin Newsom just signed a law in California banning deceptive memes. But what qualifies as deception and who decides? Also, residents of another small American town are speaking out about the Haitian migration crisis. I debate the moon landing with Joe Rogan. Howard Stern confesses that he hates his own audience and Australia is about to release its own version of The Office. Unfortunately, it looks like Australia is about as good at comedy as they are at breakdancing. All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

Am I Racist is the number one new comedy in America and is now playing only in theaters. Get tickets and showtimes to your local theaters now at miracist.com.

The Federal Reserve has just dropped interest rates, which means it's time to make a smart financial move and call my friends at American Financing Today. With mortgage rates now in the fours, yes, you heard that right, the fours, now is the perfect time to consolidate your debt and reduce your monthly expenses. And let's be honest, a lot of us have been forced to use credit cards because of the ridiculous prices at the grocery store on power bills, even for childcare.

It's getting out of hand. That credit card debt, it's not just expensive, it's insanely expensive. But here's the good news. With mortgage rates dropping, now's the time to wipe that debt out. American Financing is helping homeowners

just like you, save over $800 a month on average. That's real money you could be using to, I don't know, actually enjoy life a little bit. They're even closing some loans in as fast as 10 days. And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments, two whole payments. Plus, there are no upfront fees to find out how much you can save. None, zero, zilch. So call American Financing today at 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or if you're

More digitally inclined, visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh. NMLS 182334. NMLSconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the fours. Start at APR 5.672% for well-qualified borrowers. Call 866-569-4711 for details about credit costs and terms.

Just a couple of months ago, at the end of July, an anonymous account on X called Mr. Reagan USA uploaded a satire of Kamala Harris, of a Kamala Harris campaign ad. The user even included this caption with his post just to make sure there wasn't any confusion. It read, Kamala Harris campaign ad, parody, in all caps. But in truth, the caption wasn't necessary. Anybody watching the video understood immediately that it was a joke.

And a very effective and funny one at that. In case you missed it, here's part of it. I, Kamala Harris, senior Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility of the debate. Thanks, Joe. I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire. I'm both a woman and a person of color. So if you criticize anything I say, you're both sexist and racist. I may not know the first thing about running the country, but remember, that's a good thing if you're a deep state puppet.

I had four years under the tutelage of the ultimate deep state puppet, a wonderful mentor, Joe Biden. Joe taught me rule number one, carefully hide your total incompetence. I take insignificant things and I discuss them as if they're significant. And I believe that exploring the significance of the insignificant is in itself significant. Talking about the significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time.

So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time. And there is such great significance to the passage of time. The United States shares a very important relationship, which is an alliance with the Republic of North Korea. It is an alliance that is strong and enduring. And just remember, when voting this November, it is important to see what can be unburdened by what has been. And by what has been, I mean, Joe Biden.

This parody ad has racked up more than 60 million views. You can see why. Whatever AI voice was used, it's a pretty, actually very accurate one. And obviously the message that Kamala Harris is a ladder climbing moron and the ultimate diversity hire resonates with a lot of people. In particular, the ad resonated with prominent Democrats because they realized how devastating it was

And no top Democrat was more outraged than the governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Just two days after that parody was posted on X, Newsom responded with a threat, quote, manipulating a video in an ad like this one should be illegal. I'll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is. Now, right off the bat, even if you put aside all the specific debate about the law, it's a pretty incredible turnaround time. I mean, when was the last time a politician saw something on social media that he didn't like and promised to outlaw it within a matter of weeks?

California is so corrupt and slow moving that they can't even pass legislation to fix their high speed rail project, which is tens of billions of dollars over budget because it's stalled for about a decade. But when it comes time to me, when it comes to memes that offend Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats can move very quickly when they are personally threatened or offended in some way. Politicians spring into action. Otherwise, they just don't care.

So we saw that in spades after January 6th, Congress couldn't be bothered to do anything about BLM riders who were destroying businesses and killing people all over the country. But the moment there was a rowdy protest in the Capitol, everything changed. Doors started getting kicked in, committees were formed, people went to prison.

Now, there have been signs for a while that a similar crackdown might be coming for people who make political memes on the Internet. You probably remember the case of Douglas Mackey, who was sentenced to seven months imprisonment because he mocked Hillary Clinton voters. And now, true to his word, Gavin Newsom is bringing a similar crackdown to the most populous state in the country. On Tuesday, Gavin Newsom signed three separate laws related to deepfakes and elections. He also gloated about the legislation. Watch.

There are a lot of deepfakes out there. There's not a lot of disclosure. There's not a lot of labeling. So among the many AI bills that are on the desk are three specific election related bills. Do you want to sign some laws?

I just thought, you know, why waste your time with a politician unless they're going to do something for you? Two are signed and three are signed. And this is now official. That is now an injunctive relief if you do any of those deep fake election misrepresentations. So that's how easy it is to govern. Why waste your time with a politician unless they're going to do something for you, asks Gavin Newsom. That's how easy it is to govern.

Except, of course, Gavin Newsom didn't sign those bills for the benefit of any of his constituents. He signed them for the benefit of the Democrat Party. That's why there was no delay in getting these bills passed. All these bills were created this year. As far as I could tell, none of these bills existed in any form prior to 2024. And then once the Kamala Harris parody went up, they were fast-tracked and signed with very little debate. That's too bad because, especially on this issue, debate would have been helpful and illuminating.

For one thing, it might have helped Gavin Newsom realize that the Streisand effect is very real and he's only increasing the popularity of this Kamala ad by trying to ban it. For another thing, more conversation would have produced a more workable solution to an actual problem that does exist. Yes, deepfakes are a problem in general.

We've all probably been fooled at one point or another by a fake audio recording or a fake image. If you've been on Facebook recently, you know that there's a whole cottage industry of deliberately misleading AI-generated content on there. And they trick a lot of people every day. And as convincing as these AI voices and deepfakes are right now, they're only going to get exponentially more convincing in the future. And that's going to create all kinds of problems. I mean, something making fun of Kamala Harris is not really a problem anymore.

But it's not hard to imagine ways this technology could be used that would be legitimately harmful, if not totally catastrophic. At the same time, as Gavin Newsom himself has warned in the past, there are massive risks to overregulation. One of those potential risks is that we could end up sabotaging our own economy. AI is probably going to play a very big role in this country over the next few decades.

Whether we like it or not, AI will be involved in everything from self-driving cars and trucks to generating thousands of lines of computer code in an instant. And by the way, I don't like it. I wish that that wasn't the case, but it is. So if politicians in this country do what they did in the European Union and start putting up all kinds of regulations and barriers, then we start falling behind as a country. And countries like China end up reaping the benefits.

That's essentially the argument that Newsom himself has made actually watch. We dominate in this space, as you said. I want to continue to dominate in this space. I don't want to cede.

this space to other states or other countries. I mean, this is California. I'm at 35 of the 50 top market cap AI companies are just right here in our own backyard. So if we overregulate, if we overindulge, if we chase a shiny object, you know, we could put ourselves in a perilous position. At the same time, we have an obligation to lead because the world, again, we invented.

What's confusing when you watch a relatively thoughtful answer like that is why Gavin Newsom signed these bills yesterday. One of the laws is a sweeping ban on deceptive content, whatever that means. If you post or even share deceptive deepfakes, then your post can get taken down and you can be sued in civil court. Here's how the law defines the word deceptive. Quote,

Materially deceptive content means audio or visual media that is intentionally digitally created or modified, which includes, but is not limited to, deep fakes such that the content would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be an authentic record of the content depicted in the media. Materially deceptive content does not include any audio or visual media that contains only minor modifications that do not significantly change the perceived contents or meaning of the content.

Minor changes include changes to brightness or contrast of images, removal of background noise and audio, or other minor changes that do not impact the content of the audio or visual media. Now, the ironic thing about this law is that while it was intended to prevent mockery of Kamala and other Democrats, it appears to outlaw a lot of conduct that Kamala and her campaign have been engaging in over the past year or so.

The other day, CNN ran a whole story about how often Kamala Harris's team posts deceptive content all over the Internet. Here's the headline, quote, Fact check. Harris campaign social media account has repeatedly deceived with misleading edits and captions. And of course, Kamala Harris herself has lied about what Donald Trump said about the Charlottesville protests and the bloodbath and the auto industry and so on and so on and so on.

So why exactly is it legal for Kamala Harris and her campaign to be deceptive on social media while at the same time it's now illegal to create a deceptive deepfake? How are over lies protected by the First Amendment while only AI deepfakes are illegal? And more to the point, who actually gets to decide whether something is deceptive or not?

Especially when politics are involved, it's very difficult to get people to agree that anything is deceptive. For example, you can usually make the argument that the Kamala parody ad isn't deceptive. I mean, it's labeled parody for one thing. And for another, it's a pretty accurate summary of Kamala Harris. And yet Gavin Newsom said that he'd make it illegal because in his view, it's deceptive. Now, the other two laws that Newsom signed this week concerning AI and elections have the same problem.

The New York Times reports, quote, the second law will go into effect in January, requires labels to appear on deceptive audio, video or images in political advertisements when they're generated with help from AI tools. The third law, known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act, will go into effect in January, requires social media platforms and other websites with more than a million users in California to label or remove AI deepfakes within 72 hours after receiving a complaint. If the website does not take action, a court can require them to do so.

Again, all of these laws refer only to deceptive material, which is a totally subjective standard. The only way to get around this problem is to do away with the whole idea of a ban on deceptive content. It's unworkable in the current system, not to mention unconstitutional, as Gavin Newsom is probably going to find out very soon. In order for a ban on deceptive content to work in practice, we would need to be able to trust Gavin Newsom and any other governmental authority who passes a similar ban

to act fairly and consistently and truthfully as arbiters of what is deceptive or not. Now, obviously, we can't trust them in that role, especially because these are people beholden to an ideology that denies the existence of objective truth outright. In this case, Gavin Newsom claimed that the Kamala Harris parody ad was deceptive, even though it was literally labeled parody.

So who's to say that the deceptive content is, in fact, untrue or misleading? Maybe, hey, we all get our own truth, right? That's according to them. Maybe it was true to whoever created it. If they're calling something deceptive, why can't the person who created it say, hey, this is my truth, man. In my world, this is true. You can't impose your truth on me. Maybe it's true to the majority of people who saw it, but not to far-left Democrats. What then? Why not adopt guidelines for AI content in general instead of trying to determine what's deceptive and what's not?

By rushing these bills through the legislature in time for election day, the state of California has prevented these kinds of questions from being asked. The governor was so offended by a video mocking Kamala Harris that he signed a series of heavy-handed laws very quickly. And ironically, as a result, there are now a lot of deepfakes of Gavin Newsom circulating on social media right now. And many of them are pretty funny. Unfortunately, because of these laws that Gavin Newsom just signed,

People who share them in the state of California could end up like Douglas Mackey, and that could have their lives destroyed for sharing memes, even memes that are very obviously satire. And that's because tyrants always and everywhere have been unable to tolerate one thing, which is mockery. In the case of Kamala Harris, Democrats have realized that she isn't going to get any smarter or more qualified than

She is incapable of improvement at this point. She is, as Joe Biden himself has said, the embodiment of DEI. This is a fact that's so humiliating for Democrats that they want you to punish. They want to punish you for laughing about it. So until this law is overturned in the courts, there's really only one thing to do, which is to prove that the Streisand effect is still very real. Mock these people at every opportunity. Share an unapproved meme or two.

Make them regret trying to ban artificial intelligence that mocks Kamala Harris's lack of actual intelligence. And then when this is over with, we can have an actual conversation about how to regulate AI and deepfakes. That's a conversation that needs to happen. And it needs to happen before truth is indistinguishable from fiction. And before politicians like Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris gain any more power than they already have. Let's get to our five headlines.

All right, folks, let's talk about something that you should keep, that should keep you up at night, the left's insatiable appetite for your hard-earned money. With these massive tax hikes being proposed in Washington, we're looking at almost 40% top income tax rate, a 7% increase to the corporate tax, and get this, a capital gains tax on unrealized gains. Oh, and they want to add almost $2 trillion to an already staggering $2 trillion deficit.

This is madness. Now, you might be thinking it's time to get more of your savings tax sheltered and inflation sheltered.

This is where Birch Gold Group comes in. These are folks I trust, and they can help you convert your IRA or 401k into a gold IRA. The best part, you don't pay a dime out of pocket. Here's what you got to do. Text WALSH to 989898. You'll get a free info kit on gold. And if you act before September 30th, you'll be eligible for a limited edition 24-karat gold-plated truth bomb on qualifying purchases. In a time of high taxes and high inflation, protect your savings with gold from Birch Gold. Text WALSH to the number 989898.

for your free info kit today. That's Walsh to 989898. Unchecked third world migration is not just a problem in Springfield, Springfield, Ohio, obviously, although we're hearing about it a lot there. Many other communities are experiencing a similar crisis. So here's a resident, this is a video that went viral yesterday. It's a resident of a small town in Alabama confronting his city council over the migrant crisis in his community.

And there's no mention here. I don't believe there's any mention of dogs and cats being eaten. So we're not sure about that. But there still is a major problem because it turns out that whether or not pets are being eaten and if they are being eaten, that's like that would actually be, you know, not even in the top 20 list of the biggest problems caused by unchecked migration. So let's listen to what this resident has to say.

I hope you guys don't want to play dumb about it, but a lot of people in Sylacauga and the surrounding area are concerned about the migrant influx that we're seeing and how that's going to change our way of life. Maybe you don't live in town. Maybe you guys live in a nice neighborhood. Maybe the money is that great. I would like to know how much money you're getting from the federal government to ignore this problem or be complicit in enabling it, because either way, it's happening.

And it's not happening against your knowledge. It's obviously happening in your city, so you know what's going on. And you wanted to shut down the meeting last time, which means we're gonna talk about it this time. And hopefully not shut down the meeting, because we have the freedom to speak in this country.

And I wouldn't be here unless I saw that, but I found that very disrespectful and very much against our human rights here in this country. And also with the influx of these migrants, it's against my human right to be trampled on and to have my economy and my housing prices skyrocket because of federal housing vouchers are gonna raise the cost of housing in my city due to the influx of migrants.

Okay, because we all know how that works. A landlord, all they have to do is just tell the feds that it's $5,000 a month for this little old one bedroom apartment or whatever. And it's really only what, 800 bucks a month. But at the same time, we're getting their money from the federal government. It's raising prices on everything else around us in the community. It's hurting us.

It's raising tax values on properties and it's not people coming in with a whole bunch of money that want to spend money in Sylacauga and boost the economy. It's people that are coming here. They're not like immigrants of the past, all right? They're immigrants that are coming in here and getting free houses, free phones, free healthcare and not having to do a damn thing for it because it's like an invasion. And as far as I know, all I see are military aged males. When I walk into the Walmart around here, it feels like I'm in a third world airport.

And I don't see a whole lot of families. So what's going on is what I want to know. So there's a lot of anger in his voice, in his words, justified anger, righteous anger. And I want to pick up on one thing that he said. He said that these are not like the immigrants of the past. And that's true. And it's an important point because we always hear that America is a nation of immigrants. And that's supposed to justify rampant third world immigration that we're seeing today.

The idea is that we can't complain about it because we're all descended from migrants ourselves at some point in the past, which is true. I mean, at some point in the past, all of us are descended from people who at some point in the past came here from somewhere else. And that's true of anybody who lives in this hemisphere, to include those who we call, quote unquote, indigenous. But there's an enormous difference, though. And it's what the guy in the videos is hitting on here.

immigrants in the old days were coming to this country to help build the country. And that's something the left will acknowledge that. They'll say that this country was built by immigrants. But when they say that, they're making this point for us. Because sure, in the past, say 200 years ago, immigrants came here and they helped to build the country. They would have moved here in

in many cases, moved out to the frontier and built a homestead and helped to push our country west, taming the wilderness along the way. Right, that did happen. That's a very different thing from what is happening today because the immigrants who are coming here today are not moving out to the frontier. There is no frontier anymore, sadly. They're not going out into the wilderness for the most part and building a life for themselves. I mean, they're not even like...

going out into the woods and living in a cabin or something on a plot of land. That's not what's happening. Instead, they are coming in to take advantage of what has already been built. They're taking advantage of the infrastructure and the programs that have already been established. So they are taking. They are here to take, not to give. They are here to receive, not to sacrifice. They're here to live off of the fat of the land, as it were. And there's a major difference

between immigrants who came to take care of themselves and their families and yes, build the country and survive on their own and thrive on their own. And on the other hand, immigrants who come from third world countries in the modern day to take advantage of government programs and entitlements and all of that. So that's the immigrant on the frontier in 1872 and the immigrant on welfare in 2024

These are two entirely different categories. It's a completely different situation. And so we approach immigration, or we should approach it very differently. And that is what the guy in the video is saying. And it should be a rather obvious point. All right, my newest episode on the Joe Rogan experience dropped yesterday. And I had a great time on the show. Second time doing the show.

And Joe loved the film, Am I Racist? He gave us his endorsement. So if you're a big Joe Rogan fan, you heard it from the man himself. He said it was a very funny movie. He said, in fact, it was one of the funniest movies he's seen in a long time. So more incentive to go out and buy a ticket. And we talked about that for a while. We talked about the film, and I appreciated that. And then the conversation verged into the moon landing conspiracy, which has very little to do with the movie. In fact, probably nothing at all.

And that's okay, actually, because I thought it was a fascinating conversation. I enjoyed it. And I have to tell you, one of my, I've been listening to the Joe Rogan's podcast for, I don't know, 10 years. And this has been one of my professional ambitions now for probably a decade is to go on Joe Rogan's show and talk about something like that. Talk about aliens, talk about moon landing, you know, something in that vein. The first time I did the show, we didn't get into any of that kind of stuff.

And so I was actually happy. I'm like, yes, this is my great ambition is to talk about this kind of thing on this show. So it was great. And I kind of, I was the one who sort of brought it up. I brought it up as an aside in some other context. We were talking about flat earth. So that's another thing we were talking about. We're talking about flat earth theory, which Joe's not a flat earth guy. And then I mentioned the moon landing conspiracy theory as an aside.

I thought that Joe was a moon landing believer like I am. I know he had a joke in his Netflix special recently about denying the moon landing. I wasn't sure if that reflected his actual views. And we talked about it. It turns out that as he explained, he doesn't outright deny the moon landing, but he is much more open to the possibility that it is a hoax than he was in the past. So I'll play a little bit of that conversation. But this went on, like I said, for like an hour. I think it's worth going and watching the whole thing.

But this is about two and a half minutes of that exchange here. The Joe Rogan experience. You're moon landing. You're not a, you believe in the moon landing, right? I used to believe in the moon landing. You don't anymore? I had a joke in my act about it, that before COVID, I would have told you vaccines, the most important invention in human history. And after COVID, I'm like, I don't think we went to the moon. Yeah, I know that was in your, but you actually think that. I think there is a less than zero possibility that we did not go to the moon. I know. Why do you think we went to the moon?

Because it's exactly what you just said about well, there's a lot of reasons but the main thing is what you just said about the earth the the The vastness of the conspiracy that would be required to fake that it's so vast that it's just it's it's a lot more incredible to believe that we faked it than to believe that we just went and going to the moon don't get it's a massive achievement But I think the greatest human achievement of all time but even so to fake it would he be even more massive and

Because not only would you need all of these space agencies and all the different whatever people in American institutions to be colluding, but you'd also need foreign governments, including adversarial foreign governments, who at this point certainly would know we faked it and for some reason haven't blown the lid on it.

So they're letting us take this achievement that they know. Why haven't the Russians come out and said... All those things you're saying are true. I don't argue with any of the things you're saying. But one of the things that I think you have to consider was...

If it's not possible for human beings to safely go through the Van Allen radiation belts and out into deep space without much protection and face the temperatures that are on the surface of the moon, which get up to 250 degrees and 250 degrees below zero in the shadows.

There's no environment there. It's hostile beyond belief. Micrometeorites are flying into the moon all the time. They're flying through space all the time. We've never had a single biological organism go out into deep space, pass the Van Allen radiation belts, and then come back to Earth and come back alive, except human beings during the Apollo missions. Saying that it was a hoax...

is an assertion of a, it's not, it's not, you're not just denying an event. You're, you're asserting a whole other event that you say happened instead. And there is evidence that we went to the moon. Now, now,

Someone who's a skeptic might say it's not enough evidence or it's not good evidence. There's like evidence. There's eyewitness. There's people that went and came back and told us there's there's footage. There's a lot. There is evidence. OK, but there's but there's no evidence of the hoax. Like no one has come and said, here's my affirmative evidence that this hoax happened. It's never happened.

Okay, so I kind of gave myself the last word in that clip. Like I said, the conversation goes on for an hour, so you have to watch the whole thing. But I think that's a pretty fair summary. Joe's primary issue, his main bone of contention is the, though not only, his main is the Van Allen radiation belt, which he says humans might not be able to cross. And my main rebuttal, as you just heard, is that there is strong evidence we went to the moon. Meanwhile, there is precisely zero evidence of the hoax.

So, and I just want to expand on that for a moment, because in case after watching the Rogan episode, you haven't heard me say enough on this topic already. I think I made this point pretty clearly on the show. I returned to it several times, but the main thing is this again, there is evidence of the moon landing, really good evidence. And yet there is no evidence of a hoax. And as I tried to argue, the moon landing hoax is an event, right?

If it happened, it's an event. It is a thing that happened. It's not simply the absence of an event. So if you deny that the moon landing happened, you're not simply denying that a thing happened. You are asserting some other thing that you say happened instead of the thing that we all think happened. Staging the moon landing and all of that, right? There was a thing that they did. And yet...

This to me, I think, is really kind of decisive in this argument. Nobody, none of the skeptics have ever presented a single shred of evidence of that event occurring. To be very clear about this.

To look at the evidence of the moon landing and to pick it apart and say, well, this evidence isn't compelling enough. That is not evidence of the hoax. That is, at best, at best, you are succeeding in calling into question some of the evidence of this other event, which I don't think you succeed even in doing that. And now there's police cars going by. Maybe they're going after someone who just probably made a deceptive meme, probably. Maybe they're coming from me right now.

Okay, good. I don't want to cut any of this out. I want to keep all this in. This is what's wonderful about doing a podcast in a hotel room. Anyway, as I was saying, even if you succeed in pointing to weaknesses in the evidence of the moon landing hoax, which I don't think that the skeptics do succeed in that, you still have not provided positive, affirmative evidence of the event that you are asserting happened instead. And so you've got...

You've got this event over here where there's a whole bunch of evidence. Okay. And then you get your event that you're, that you claim happened. You zero evidence, none. Now, what would the evidence of the moon landing hoax be?

OK, not evidence that the evidence of the moon landing is not good. I'm not talking about that evidence. What kind of evidence could you possibly present to prove that this hoax happened? And well, I don't know. I mean, that's kind of up to you. That's that's your burden of proof, not mine. But even something like somebody who was involved in it blowing the whistle.

somebody coming out and saying, hey, I was there when this hoax happened, or even I talked to the guy who was there when it happened. Now, that would not be good evidence. That'd be still pretty weak if all you could do is say, well, yeah, I talked to a guy who was there, or I talked to a guy who talked to a guy. But we don't even have that. And we certainly don't have any firsthand eyewitness testimony. Because guess what? Firsthand eyewitness testimony is evidence. It's not proof. It's not proof, but that is evidence.

It's just like it's evidence in a crime. Eyewitness testimony can be wrong. We know that, but it's evidence. I mean, you certainly, if a prosecutor has eyewitness testimony that somebody killed a guy, you're going to bring that person in and they're going to testify in court. Of course they are because it's evidence. If it's the only evidence you have, it's probably not going to be enough. But if it goes along with other pieces of evidence, then you got a pretty strong case.

Well, over here, there's no physical evidence of any kind of this hoax happening. No one's ever found whatever the site where they've staged the moon landing or something. That's never happened. But you also don't even have the eyewitness testimony. And that's kind of what I was getting at with Joe also, that you're not only asserting this event, but you're asserting a conspiracy where everybody that involved...

Hundreds of people, probably. I mean, there's hundreds of people who were involved in the conspiracy and or would have to have direct knowledge of it in order for this to happen. And yet we've heard nothing from any of them. Decades and decades have passed. And so you've got all these people who work together on this conspiracy, all these people who have knowledge of it. None of them have said a word, not one word ever in decades. That's pretty incredible.

And I say incredible in the most literal sense. It's just very hard to believe. So I still stand there. I'm still a full-time, full-on moon landing believer, but I did enjoy the conversation. All right. Daily Wire has this. Radio shock jock Howard Stern said he doesn't hate former President Donald Trump, but the people who are supporters of Trump and who vote for him. During his SiriusXM The Howard Stern Show podcast on Monday, he said,

Stern talked about Trump's post over the weekend in which he wrote, I hate Taylor Swift in all caps. Trump's post came on the heels of the pop star's endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris immediately after the ABC presidential debate. This whole idea of, this is quoting now, Stern told his audience, quote, this whole idea of you like me, you are good. And if you don't, you're bad. I've been the victim of this. I don't agree with Trump politically. I don't think he should be anywhere near the White House.

He said, I don't hate the guy. I hate the people who vote for him. I think they're stupid. I do. I have no respect for you. That's what Stern said about the people who vote for Trump. So he doesn't even hate Trump, he claims, but he hates his voters. Tens of millions of American citizens that he hates. And, you know, it's weird with Howard Stern because on one hand, and you hear this from conservatives a lot, that Howard Stern has fallen off, you know, past his prime, fallen off, not what he used to be.

He has become a person that the younger version of himself would have hated. And that's true. And now here he is attacking really his own audience or what used to be his audience. His audience used to be, I don't know what his audience is now. I honestly have no idea who's still listening to this guy. I've never met. I haven't met anyone in recent years who's a stern listener. I don't know who that is. I don't know who it is. But his audience used to be a very blue collar audience.

kind of audience. All men, blue collar, middle class men, working class men, men on their way to work, listening in their cars. That was Howard Stern's audience. Well, the funny thing is that's also Trump's voter base. So Howard Stern hates the audience that made him into what he is and gave him everything that he has. So on top of being a hateful elitist prick,

He's also incredibly ungrateful. He's a backstabbing traitor to the people who turned him into this guy who's worth whatever, hundreds of millions of dollars. So just a terrible human being. But then at the same time, I can't really say that he should still be the same guy that he used to be. I can't really lament that, oh, he should still be like the Howard Stern of old. Because back then, back in his heyday, he was a degenerate freak.

Back in those days, he was like a 45-year-old pervert talking about how attracted he was to the Olsen twins who were adolescents at the time. So that's who he used to be. And now he's become this. And I guess the point is that he's been a scumbag his whole life, just different versions of a scumbag. So it's not very surprising. As for hating Trump supporters, there's nothing very notable about that. We've heard the same sentiments, maybe not quite as explicit, but close from Hillary Clinton. Hear it from the media all the time. Extremely common.

And this is the way they all feel, of course. And it's not just about Trump, really. I mean, when Trump is no longer on the political scene, which that's going to be the case relatively soon, the next few years, no matter what happens, and when he's no longer on the political scene, they're going to have this, whoever the next Republican nominee is, they're going to feel the same way about the supporters of that person, whoever it is. It doesn't matter who it is.

And why do they feel that way? Because if you show that you are defiant and you refuse to go along with the program, that being their program, the program they've set out for you, right? They've laid it out. They've told you, this is how you're supposed to live. These are the things you're supposed to say. This is what you're supposed to do. These are the priorities you're supposed to have, the values you're supposed to have. They've laid it all out very clearly. And if you look at that and say, yeah, no thanks.

And I'm going to live a different way than that. Then they hate you for that. And that's all that it really is. Which is also why any talk of unity in this country, when you hear it from, especially Democrat politicians, when you hear from Kamala Harris, all that talk is just, it's meaningless. And they don't really mean it. And it can't happen, especially coming from people who you hate.

You despise half of the country. What kind of unity can there possibly be? There has to at least be some kind of, as I talk about all the time, there has to be, number one, some kind of shared core value system. It doesn't mean we have to agree on everything, but we have to agree on something, some kind of fundamental value system. And from that, you can also have a shared mutual respect. And if you have that, then maybe you can be united together.

in some sort of meaningful sense. But if you don't have either of those things, then unity is just impossible, unfortunately. You know what keeps me up at night? The state of our country. But at least I'm not tossing and turning because of my mattress anymore. That's right. I'm talking about Helix Sleep. Now, you might be thinking, Matt, aren't all mattresses basically the same? Well, wrong. Helix offers 20 unique mattresses, including their Luxe and Elite collections for you fancy folks, the Helix Plus for you big and tall sleepers out there, and Helix

even a Helix kids mattress. Don't know where to start? Helix has a sleep quiz that'll match you with your perfect mattress in under two minutes. That's less time than it takes for me to come up with a witty comeback on Twitter. That takes me...

20, 25 minutes for that gold. And once you've found your match, they'll ship it straight to your door free of charge. No more awkward small talk with mattress store employees or feeling pressured to buy the most expensive option on the showroom floor. Not only is my Helix mattress incredibly comfortable, but it's also fiberglass free. That's right. Unlike some other brands that use fiberglass as a flame retardant,

which, by the way, has been causing health issues and lawsuits left and right. Helix owns its own manufacturing facility that's entirely fiberglass-free, so I can sleep easy knowing I'm not inhaling tiny glass particles. What a concept. So if you want to sleep like you've never slept before, head on over to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, where for a limited time, Helix is offering up to 25% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners. Just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh. That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh.

This is their best offer yet, and it won't last long with Helix. Better sleep starts now. The number one comedy in America is Am I Racist? And the only way you can see it is in theaters. A week ago, only our fans knew about Am I Racist coming to theaters, but today it's the number four movie in the country with a 99% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, and the incredible reviews are pouring in. Yesterday, as I mentioned, I stopped by the world-famous Joe Rogan show to talk about the movie. Take a listen to what Joe Rogan had to say about Am I Racist?

Your movie is really funny. It's really funny. By myself, laughing out loud hysterically today. I watched it in the sauna. I watched it in the gym. I watched it. It was, it's one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time because there's so many moments that are so uncomfortable.

Well, you heard it from Joe. Don't miss out on the movie that will make you gasp, laugh, and cringe. If you haven't seen Am I Racist yet, go to amiracist.com and get your tickets. If you have seen Am I Racist, see it again this weekend and tell your friends. I repeat, it's only in theaters. Keep the momentum going as we make history at the box office. Head to amiracist.com now. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

Well, if you've listened to the show at all over the past few months, you know that I've been at war with the former penal colony that is Australia, which has transformed in recent years into the single weakest and lamest hellscape on the planet, much as it pains me to say. It doesn't pain me at all to say, but, you know, just trying to be nice. This is a country that literally has a minister of men's behavior change.

Someone recently got attacked by a violent octopus on one of their beaches. Poisonous spiders are falling from the sky. They just had a major federal court decision clocking in at around 5,000 words where they couldn't decide what a woman is. And of course, as I've said many times, most recently in response to the catastrophe that is Alone Australia, their TV show, their television programs are a crime against humanity. But even after calling out Australia as extensively as I have,

Being one of the only people in conservative media that's following this story about Australia being lame as closely as I am, today I feel compelled, obligated even, to speak up and trash Australia once more. And that's because I learned this week that Australia is currently in the process of butchering one of my favorite comedies of all time, which is The Office.

At least one of my favorite comics of all time is The Office seasons one through four, and the rest of The Office doesn't exist in my world.

But Australia is doing a remake. And I use that term very liberally to be very clear about this. The point of this remake is not to be funny or amusing in any way. The point is to make a political statement. They want to push their ideology while also destroying the original show by association to the extent that they can. So if you can bear it, here's part of the trailer to give you an idea of what they're planning to do to The Office. Here it is. Big announcement. Can I have a drumroll, please?

The drumroll, Lloyd. That's how I drumroll. People ask me, how can I become a great boss? And the answer is having a happy staff that love you. This is a proper HR nightmare. As of today, we are all back in the office full time. What? That's not good news. I'm promoting you to productivity manager. Yes, sir. Do I want to support the vision of my branch manager? At all costs.

Is this the dark web? No, it's not the dark web. Is that Lizzie? Okay. The perks of coming to work. Riling up Lizzie. Flirting. Watching Nick rile up Lizzie. What's his name? My crow's name is Russell. Hello, Rusty. How are you, mate? Nick, no. No!

We lost one of our own last week. Brian died. We were so close. He's always in my heart. Oh, is he the tall, sad one? Yeah. No, he was the short and smiley one. Yeah, that's what I meant. What nationality is he? What sexual identity is he? Doesn't feel relevant, does it? Hannah is a riddle swallowed by an idiot and s***ed up by a moron. Promoting women into positions of power. That's my mantra, really. I've never heard you say that. Oh, my back hurts from carrying all my sisters all the time. Ow! Ow!

So the guy says this is a proper HR nightmare. And then the trailer is just one banal, seemingly HR approved scenario after another. He gets the crow's name wrong. That's pretty funny. And the crow flies around a little bit of slapstick. And the boss lady doesn't know anything about the employee who just died. And then she says that she likes promoting women to positions of authority. And normally when you're making a trailer for a comedy, one of the goals, really the only goal,

actually, is to include something funny. Maybe a joke or two. You might want to throw in there, mix it in a bit. Or maybe you can include a vaguely funny scenario at least so that people can imagine that funny things are about to happen. I can speak with some authority on this, not just because we just released a trailer for Am I Racist? We're releasing a trailer for a comedy and so we

We spent some time talking about, oh, you know, what are the funny moments we want to put in the trailer? We definitely want to have some funny moments in the trailer. But I also speak with authority because I'm a human being with a brain and common sense. And it's a low bar for a comedy trailer to clear. But generally, you know, it gets cleared. That was not the case here. This two-minute long trailer for the Australian reboot of The Office does not contain a single joke or humorous situation. They had an entire season of material to harvest.

And they couldn't find a single moment of real comedy. It also doesn't set up any potentially funny situations. Instead, it does the opposite. Sets up another rehash of the same kind of woke progressive moralizing that we're all very familiar with at this point.

The reference to sexual identity is a pretty big clue that this production isn't going to mock any of the insanity that's taken hold in workplaces since the American version of The Office went off the air. Instead, it's going to reinforce it. As Steve Carell himself put it several years ago, this is a trap that any modern remake of The Office was always going to fall into. E! Online reported in 2018 that, quote, Steve Carell says The Office revival won't work because its humor is completely wrong-minded today.

Here's what Correll said, quote, apart from the fact that I just don't think that's a good idea, it might be impossible to do that show today and have people accept it the way that it was accepted 10 years ago. The climate's different now. I mean, the whole idea of the character, Michael Scott, so much of it was predicated on inappropriate behavior. He's certainly not a model boss. A lot of what is depicted on that show is completely wrong-minded. That's the point. But I just don't know how that would fly now. There's a very high awareness of offensive things today, which is good for sure. But at the same time, when you take a character like that to literally doesn't really work.

So Steve Carell gets it mostly right. Of course, not entirely right because he still has to qualify that. Yeah, people are oversensitive today, but it's good. It's totally good. I'm not criticizing them. The irony here is that Steve Carell himself would never appear in the office today. He wouldn't do it because he also is woke and lame now.

There's just no way that the entertainment industry as it exists today could create anything as funny as that version of The Office that he worked on. Not the original version, of course, but the actual original version, the UK version. This is even more the case. They definitely you're not going to find that on network TV today. And that's not a good thing, as he claims. It's why so much comedy is garbage now.

So here's just one example. I mean, you could pull a million examples. Just one example of a scene from the original show or the original American show that they could never do now. Watch. How are you? I had the longest meeting. Oh, welcome to my convenience store. Would you like some googie googie? Oh, I have some very delicious googie googie. Only 99 cents plus tax. Try my googie googie. Try my googie googie. Try my googie googie. Try my...

Now, no one watching this scene at the time thought, wow, that's so bigoted. Steve Carell should be canceled. This show's a white supremacist dog whistle. It's problematic. Instead, they laugh because Steve Carell's character is a clueless idiot. And that's the whole point.

And then they moved on with their lives. But this kind of humor isn't allowed anymore, at least not in the mainstream, because it'll be a poo from The Simpsons situation all over again. And we may remember that character, that there was a whole documentary about how problematic a poo was. And then they apologized and got rid of the character from that show. And so this is what you get. And now we get safe jokes about sexual identity and that sort of thing.

But the bigger red flag in that trailer is that they've gender swapped the Michael Scott and Dwight Schrute characters, who are women now. Yet the characters, as we can tell from the trailer, are still supposed to retain all of the comedic traits of Michael and Dwight. But it doesn't land.

It is possible to create compelling female characters, even funny female characters, but not when they are pale imitations of beloved male characters, which is how this sort of thing almost always works. It's why it's almost always lame. When we see a remake and you see a bunch of women in the lead roles, everybody kind of rolls their eyes now.

And then we're accused of being sexist, but it's only because we've seen this. It always goes this way. You take characters that are supposed to be male, but they're male, but they're kind of distinctly male traits. And you just throw a woman in there and it doesn't work. It just doesn't work. Michael and Dwight in the American office, it's a distinctly male kind of humor. They are male characters and their character traits, the funny things about them only make sense

and are certainly funnier coming from men. It's just, that's it. This is a trend that's so common now that South Park did a whole special called Joining the Pandaverse last year. That's the one where they transform the South Park characters into a diverse cast of strong, independent women. And Cartman, as Kathleen Kennedy of Lucasfilm, demands that everything become lame and gay. Watch. Is there a problem, people?

No problem at all, Mrs. Kennedy. We were just discussing ideas of what to do with the new Prince Eric movie. Put a chick in it, make her gay! Uh, yes, Mrs. Kennedy, uh, some of the execs are just expressing that maybe... Well, that maybe we should go a different route than we did with Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones, put a chick in it and make her name a gay! Put a diverse woman in it, make it gay! But, Mrs. Kennedy, Bambi's a baby deer.

Baby, do you put a chicken in Maker Gay? There you are, Miss Kennedy, the linguine and clam sauce. Uh, excuse me. I believe I asked you to put a chicken in this in Maker Gay. Uh, yes. The chef was a little confused what you meant by that. It means put a chicken in the linguine and make her f*** gay! I want it lame!

So that one clip is guaranteed to be funnier than the entirety of the Australian remake of The Office. And you could tell that because unlike the Australian remake of The Office, it doesn't seem like a skit that was produced by the HR department of a Fortune 500 company.

And it's getting at something we all know is happening, and not just with Disney. There are too many examples to count. There was the disastrous Ghostbusters remake where they made the Ghostbusters a bunch of strong, independent women. Nobody wanted to watch that. There was also the What Men Want, the remake of the 2000 film What Women Want, which didn't go over well with audiences or critics, and they gender-swapped the other way. The Verge, a left-wing publication that probably wanted to like the film, wrote that the gender swap had muddled the film's plot.

There was also The Hustle, which was a gender swap remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, which had very similar problems. The Atlantic, another left-wing publication that you'd think would be sympathetic to this stuff, panned the film as, quote, a lazy gender swap. They wrote that it was, quote, not merely uninspired, but sub-inspired, de-inspired, anti-inspired. It feels at times like the consummation of some wicked dare.

It also works as a good summary of this new Australian remake of The Office. That's because all these lazy gender swap projects are the same. They're driven by ideology instead of charm or passion. They're not edgy or provocative at all. They come across as a mandatory diversity training video that you'd be forced to click through at work instead of an actual piece of entertainment that's intended to make you laugh. And that's why the trailer for this doomed remake of The Office didn't include a single joke. When activists pretend to be entertainers, they just can't help themselves. All they do is destroy. They can't create.

And right now they're doing everything they can to destroy one of the best comedies that ever aired on television for four seasons anyway. But the truth is that The Office is a comedy that's worth rewatching, not remaking. And that is why the Australian remake of The Office, along with the entire country of Australia, once again, is 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. It 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 certifications. 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? 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.