Is the Texas Mall Shooter a Neo-Nazi? (Spoiler: Unlikely, and Here’s Why)

Happy Monday. Welcome back to the Liz Wheeler Show. Is the shooter in Texas a neo-Nazi? Let me start by saying this is a perfectly valid, legitimate question to ask because when someone is accused of being a neo-Nazi, there needs to be absolute proof of that before we make the assumption that it is true. Right now, the mainstream media is accusing Mauricio Garcia, who is the absolutely horrendous evil man who murdered eight people in Allen, Texas of being a neo-Nazi. They say he has white supremacist sympathies, but the source of this accusation is unnamed, quote unquote law enforcement sources. So we don’t have any proof that this is true. They’ve provided no evidence to su to substantiate this claim, and they won’t even name the person who told them that this shooter has white supremacist tendencies. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. We have literally no idea. 

But there are some more important questions about this shooting that need to be asked. And the Left, right now is using this empty accusation that, oh, he has neo-Nazi sympathies. He’s a white supremacist to avoid answering the other questions that need to be asked. That’s what we’re gonna talk about today. We’re also gonna talk about California. A panel in California has recommended reparations for black people in the state, up to 1.2 million each, for every black person in the state of California, based on some really interesting and totally insane standards. Remember, slavery was never legal in the state of California. And it’s not just slavery that qualifies or even being the descendant of someone who is enslaved, that qualifies black people in California for reparations, reparations that are paid by taxpayers and white people and people who had nothing to do with slavery or the violation of civil rights or human rights or any such thing. We’re also gonna talk about the updates in the Jordan Neely case, an interesting observation that I had over the weekend about that. And of course, we are going to touch on the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla. And actually, what’s the most interesting part of the whole thing? So let’s get to it. 

So the horrible evil man who murdered eight people in Allen, Texas, his name is Mauricio Garcia. You can see a picture of him on the screen. You know my policy. I do not withhold from you a picture of the shooter. I do not withhold from you the name of the shooter like some other outlets do, because I’m not here to be the gatekeeper. You can decide whether you wanna see this and hear this. I want to report to you what the facts are, and then I want to talk with you and analyze these situations with you and not decide what you are responsible enough to hear or what you’re not responsible enough to hear none of that. So that’s the shooter. Mauricio Garcia. As you can see, it’s an Hispanic man, which believe it or not, is critical to the analysis of this story. 

Because almost immediately after this happened, this man opened fire in a mall. An outlet mall in Texas, killed eight people, including some children. almost immediately the Left did two things. Of course, they started with our gun control talk that’s expected. They always tried to capitalize on tragedies to coerce people when people’s emotions are heightened into accepting the Left’s, preexisting political agendas when it comes to our second amendment. That’s gross and ineffective and dangerous, but expected. But the second thing that they did is they branded this man as a neo-Nazi sympathizer. They said according to law enforcement sources, Mauricio Garcia had white supremacist, had white supremacist sympathies, or a white supremacist ideology. Again, this is a valid question. I’m not sitting here saying he wasn’t a white supremacist. I’m not saying that he didn’t have neo-Nazi tendencies. I have no idea. I have literally no idea. 

Just like everyone else has no idea. We don’t know the facts yet. If he did, we absolutely should analyze well, how did he get into that ideology and what led him to embrace such poisonous rhetoric that he would use it to harm other people? we, we should know exactly what his ideology is. Just like we should know what’s in the manifesto of the Nashville mass shooter. We absolutely should know exactly what these people believed to try to unpack why they committed these mass atrocities so that we could possibly prevent such atrocities from happening in the future. All that being said, we don’t know if he was a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist because these unnamed law enforcement officers or sources, meaning if they don’t wanna go on the record, there’s a reason why they don’t wanna go on the record. They’re either fake or their evidence isn’t solid. 

They provide, by the way, no evidence, not social media posts, not tattoos, not comments that he’s made to his family. Nothing. We get no evidence. We’re just supposed to take, take the mainstream media’s word for it based on an unnamed source. I’m sorry. The mainstream media has not acted in a way worthy of our trust that would convince me to take their word for it without them providing hard evidence. You show me the hard evidence, you put the sources on record or else I’m not going to assume that this killer was acting according to an ideology, which you have used to brand. Every unfairly used, falsely used to brand every political opponent to the Democratic party, right? That’s the thing, of course, right? The mainstream media wants this man to be a neo-Nazi sympathizer. They want this man to adhere to white supremacist ideology because they’ve spent the last, what, since 2015. 

That’s the last eight years labeling every conservative, every republican and every person that voted for Trump as a white supremacist neo-Nazi sympathizer. It’s grotesque because it’s not true. But they want this killer to be a white supremacist neo-Nazi sympathizer, because then they can say, oh, well, he was probably radicalized by Trump, right? It’s probably radicalized by those republicans. Republicans are no better than this guy who brutally murdered eight people at a mall in Texas, Texas of all places. The mainstream media wants this to be the case. That’s why they’re, they’re labeling him when we don’t have really much of any information about him. Yet they’re labeling him as a neo-Nazi white supremacist because they know that’ll stick in the minds of the American people regardless of what other information comes out about him in the days to come. And by doing that, they’ve already associated him in the minds of the American public with their false allegations against us. 

If this sounds evil, it’s because that’s exactly what it is. They’re taking an act of evil and they’re trying to associate it with people they don’t like politically. And that in and of itself is evil too. So we do have a photograph of his hand. I mean, this is a picture of him after he’s been killed. There was an off-duty police officer or a police officer who was responding to another call nearby who respond, ended up responding to the 911 calls that were coming from this mall. When the shooting was taking place. He went over to the mall and he tracked down and killed this murderer. I can’t even express my gratitude and my admiration for the heroism of this police officer who stopped what could have been an even worse tragedy than it already is. But after this sus or after this killer had been killed by the police officer his body was laying on the ground and his hand was out. 

I am gonna show you this. It doesn’t show his face, it doesn’t show his wounds. So it is just his hand on the ground. But look at the back of his hand here. You see this tattoo on the back of his hand. There’s some speculation. I know it’s a very blurry photo cuz it was taken from quite a far distance away. But there’s some speculation that this might be some kind of gang tattoo. it will be interesting in the days, in the days to come to see whether that’s true, to see what his affiliation was with any kind of, with any kind of gang or with any kind of ideology. Like I said, he could be an Nazis sympathizer. We don’t know yet. It seems a little, a little unlikely to me that he would be a neo-Nazi sympathizer, given the fact that he is a Hispanic man. 

You saw the picture of him. He, I know on his mugshot. on the information below his mugshot, it says that his race is white, but you saw him. He is, he’s clearly a Hispanic man. There are a lot of people online who were even saying, well, he looks like a black man. Well, regardless, you can be black and Hispanic. You can be white and Hispanic. He clearly is of Hispanic descent here. It’d be a little weird to me. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that someone of Hispanic origin would be a white supremacist. That seems really contradictory. But like I said, we’ll have to wait and see here. It will be interesting to see what kind of, what his tattoos tell us and whether the police try to hide this. the other reason that the, that the mainstream media and the laughter are obsessing about this as of yet baseless allegation that he is a neo-Nazi sympathizer is because there are a lot of other questions that should be asked when a shooting a murder like this occurs, especially, especially a shooting, not just a murder, but a mass shooting. 

When a mass shooting occurs, there are many other questions that we should immediately ask about the, well, the killer. I don’t even wanna call him the suspected killer. We know that this guy was the murderer. and he’s dead now. So it’s not like he’s gonna face trial. But some of the other questions that need to be asked that the Left does not want to ask because they’d rather just blame the gun. They’d rather just blame Trump and white supremacy. The other questions are, well, what was the mental health history of this individual? Did he suffer serious mental health issues, especially, you know, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia? And if so, what medication was he on? Was he on some of the black box psychiatric drugs that if you read on the label, the warning labels some of the side effects include homicidal ideation. 

I know this is a very unpopular thing to say, I know I’m gonna get, I’m gonna get backlash for this. And I think in this case it doesn’t matter because if you read, I mean, that’s why they’re called black labeled drugs because some of the side effects of these drugs include suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation. It doesn’t mean that everybody taking them is going to experience that. Thankfully, that’s not the case. But it does mean that some people taking these drugs experience that this should, this should actually be the first question that we ask is what were, what were the mental illnesses of this person and how were they being treated or not treated for those mental illnesses? That should be the first question. But the Left isn’t interested in that. Was he on SSRIs? The left is not interested in asking the second question. 

Again, these are unpopular questions, even on the right sometimes, did he smoke weed? What was his history of of marijuana? Was he a cannabis user? There was a new study that just came out that showed that one in every three young men who suffer from schizophrenia, it was triggered by cannabis use. And we did a, we did an episode on four 20 talking about the correlation between cannabis use and violence, cannabis use and psychosis, cannabis use and murder. It’s a very relevant question to ask, especially when we do have this thing happening in our country where there are more mass shootings than we have ever experienced before. Are we seriously, as a society not interested in looking at what some of these some of these shared characteristics are, some of these variables that are, that are unchanging when it comes to analyzing these mass shooters? 

This, it’s so mind blowing to me that we pretend to care as a nation when people are shot, but we don’t, as a society care enough to ask the hard questions. We don’t care enough to say, well, what are the shared characteristics and the common circumstances? Is there a factor that has changed in our society in the last 10 years, in the last 15 years that exists among all of these shooters? And if so, what is it? Instead what we do, the media uses it as an opportunity to try to conflate shooters with p political political opposition that they don’t like. And the Left uses it to try to push their preexisting political agenda on gun control. That’s it. That’s all we do time after time after time, instead of asking these hards questions, was he from a broken family? Oftentimes young men who commit atrocious acts of violence are from broken families. 

Was he abused physically or sexually? Was he abused? What was his experience during the covid lockdowns that had a tremendous psychologically damaging effect, especially on young men? Did he play violent video games? Again, a very unpopular question, but these first person shooter video games that young men play, don’t kid yourself, that they don’t negatively impact young men who already have mental health issues. Of course they do. Of course they do. Doesn’t mean that everybody who plays those games is going to turn into a violent psychopath. But it does mean that some men, some young men who are predisposed to mental illness are going to be influenced by that. Of course it does. And what was his ideology? What was, what were his political beliefs? What motivated him? That’s a very important question to ask. Just like we asked about the Nashville shooter. Was the shooter motivated by queer theory? It seemed very obvious that she was What, what motivated the shooter? What was the ideology, whether it’s a religious ideology or political ideology or a racial ideology, it doesn’t matter in the sense that we’re analyzing what motivated him so that we can ask, okay, what led him to that ideology? How was he radicalized to the point that he committed mass murder? 

And then who saw the red flags in this individual and did not intervene? One of the most common factors that exists in all of these situations is family and friends and coworkers and neighbors see red flags in these individuals and don’t do anything. And I understand it’s very difficult to know what to do because we have dis we have, we have eliminated as a society involuntary institutionalization, we no longer send people to insane asylums. And we should, we should, I know again, this show is going to be full of unpopular takes. I’m gonna get a, I’m gonna get an inbox full of emails after this show because a lot of conservatives think, well, if we want limited government, why would we trust the same government that sits the i r s on us and uses the F B I to target conservatives and weaponizes the DOJ against a sitting president of the United States? 

Why would we trust those people, government officials, politicians, to not abuse, involuntary commitment to insane asylums? Why would we trust, why would we trust judges? Some judges who have essentially ex exposed themselves or pledged guilty to a radical leftist ideology to be the arbis of whether someone is justly institutionalized or unjustly institutionalized? And the answer to that question is our system has to be trusted but not just given trust, not just not just us giving arbitrary trust to politicians. We have to structure our system so that there’s recourse for abuse. And right now, believe it or not, as broken as many of our systems are, or not really broken as our systems are, but as, as captured as many of our institutions are by the Left, our actual systems still work. It’s just the people operating them who are abusing them, right? Our criminal justice system still works. 

If you commit a crime and you are tried by a jury of your peers, that system is intact. That system is effective, that system is a system you can trust. The only the only time that you can’t trust that is when the institution has been captured by the Left that is using that system to abuse you. So for example, if you’re in, in Washington DC a juror of your peers is obviously going to side with the Left because they’re the radical leftist swamp creatures that live in Washington dc. But aside from those examples, in general, our system works. Our system is a system to be trusted. We just have to make sure that the people in charge of it are abusing their power. So yes, we should bring back involuntary commitment. We should bring back insane asylums. We should recognize that homeless people aren’t just people that don’t have a house. 

They’re not just people who are suffering some, some hard times and aren’t able to make rent that no, they are severely mentally ill and or drug addicted. And they need to be committed to somewhere where they can be kept safe and that society can be kept safe from them. This didn’t used to be a controversial issue. The only, the only reason it became controversial is when particular institutions and insane asylums were abused by those running them, and that there wasn’t proper accountability to those who were running them. And so we actually swung the pendulum too far and we said, okay, well, let’s abolish them. Let’s abolish them altogether. There’s one more thing that we need to talk about about this shooting in Texas. The other aspect of this shooting that the Left is not interested in talking about, and I have not seen a report about this from the mainstream media. 

You can send me articles or reports if I have somehow missed their extensive coverage of this, but I have not seen more than a passing reference to this here and there. That mall, that outlet mall in Texas was a gun-free zone. They had a policy prohibiting legal gun owners from concealed carrying in, in on their premises time and time again. What is a common denominator in these shootings? It is a gun-free zone, which renders all the innocent people in this mall, in this outlet store or this outlet, this outlet premises, sitting ducks, sitting ducks, and it tells its signals to these mass shooters that they’re going to be able to commit this crime without being stopped because no one has a way to defend themselves unless an off-duty police officer or a police officer responding to something else nearby happens to intervene. 

It’s a gun-free zone. Next time a leftist brings up gun control, next time you see on your Instagram feed someone posting about, oh, are we going to let this happen again? Or are we finally going to take those weapons of war off the streets? You post in the comments and you say, was that mall a gun-free zone or was it not? Because mark my words, these people would not be effective. These shooters that we see in our country, these murderers would not be effective if more people, more law abiding, competent citizens like you and like me, were allowed to carry firearms in a responsible way so that when our safety and the safety of our family and the safety of our fellow citizens around us, our communities are threatened, we are able to act like that. But the Left and the mainstream media don’t care about that. 

Okay? Out in California panel on reparations has advised the state legislature, they officially sent their recommendation to the state legislature in California recommending that California pay black residents in reparations and issue a formal apology to black residents. Now, part of this is funny to me because the Left, and this is obviously leftists on this panel, doesn’t recognize their own ideology, their own ideology, which says, oh, it doesn’t matter if you apologize, it will never be accepted. It will never be good enough. Because the wrongdoing that you’re talking about, the oppression that you’re talking about isn’t based on your thoughts, your behavior, your actions, your history, your character, none of that. It’s just based on the color of your skin, which is something you can’t change based on evil things that happened, maybe committed by people who shared the color of your skin hundreds of years ago. 

But you’re irredeemable because you have experienced the privilege begot of that institutional racism. So the Left doesn’t even understand their own ideology. An apology will never cut it, it will never be enough. It will never be accepted. You will always have to continue to pay until you are the marginalized person in the equation. That’s the neo-Marxist dialectic here. however, this reparations panel has recommended to California that they pay $1.2 million or up to $1.2 million to each black person in California. There’s different standards for different things the people might have experienced that allow them to collect different amounts of money. So basically, if you’ve lived in California since the 1930s and you experienced, you know, redlining or you experienced over-policing, quote unquote, I don’t know what that means over-policing, we can talk about that separately. But that term seems a little all-encompassing, doesn’t it? Or mass incarceration. 

If you or someone you are related to suffered from mass incarceration again, what are the elements of that? What are the standards of that? Is that just this Black Lives Matter narrative? That there’s disproportionate percentage of black people that are put in jail assuming that it’s based on the color of their skin versus the crimes that they commit Anyway, if you have experienced or tangentially experienced any of these things, then you get to you get, you qualify for different amounts of money. And if you’re, say like a 70 year old in California who’s lived in California all their life, then you could be eligible for up to $1.2 million. the ironic part is that slavery was never legal in the state of California ever. Slavery was never legal. So none of these people who’ve lived in California have ever experienced slavery because we don’t have slavery in this country. 

None of these people living in California even their ancestors did not experience slavery in California. So why the state of California owes them reparations is a little bit of a head scratcher. The panel justifies their recommendation for reparations based on the fact that the Fugitive Slave Act was not prohibited in California when it was a thing, you know, century or like so far back that none of the people in California even tangentially experienced the effects of that. this is obviously ridiculous, but beyond being ridiculous, it is socialism. This is redistribution of wealth because there’s no limiting principle on this, right? If black people who were never enslaved black people who never who live in a state that never had slavery, even if even re ir, regardless of the fact that this was generations ago, if they qualify as so marginalized that it justifies the government giving them my money, for example, why don’t I qualify? 

Why don’t I qualify as a woman? Because as women, were we not generations past deprived of certain rights that men in our country were allowed to enjoy maybe getting a credit card or driving or working or voting or owning property if you weren’t married, were there not elements of American life that women were deprived of? So why would I not be eligible for reparations from any state, really? Because it clearly doesn’t matter if the state was ever part of inflicting this marginalization on you. and where does this end? It’s not just women. What about gay people? What about gay people who were say not allowed to get married until, you know, what, nine years ago? What about them? Were they not deprived of what the Left considers to be a right? Were they not marginalized? Do they not deserve to be paid? The limiting principle here is non-existent. 

As you could see. You could go down the line and any person at any time could identify with some kind of immutable characteristic and claim that some political policy, not just slavery, right, some political policy negatively impacted them because of that status, because of that immutable characteristic, and therefore the government owes them a certain amount of money. Now, perhaps this is what’s intended by this policy because this is what the Left actually wants. They want government to be in charge of everybody’s money. They want government to redistribute the wealth that is socialism and it leads to communism and Marxism, and that’s exactly what the Left wants. So this is not just silly and contradictory and insane. This is the Left pulling a stunt in a sense that will be very effective because it’s hard for people to say, well, I don’t think I’m in favor of reparations. 

And the Left to be like, well, you don’t think that black people have been oppressed in our country. It puts conservatives on defensive immediately. So what does the Left do they choose this as the way to give government a power to take your money and give it to someone else knowing that there is no logical conclusion to this? There’s no finality to this, there’s no limiting principle on this. And soon we’re gonna be in a situation where the government, for any reason that they invent, is going to be able to take your money and move it all around until we are nothing but a socialist hell hole. 

Okay, A thought I had on Jordan Neely. I know we talked about Jordan Neely, the subway chokehold death situation. We talked about that late last week, but I had an additional thought about that over the weekend. and some protestors did some pretty nutty things over the weekend that I think we should address. Two quick things about the Jordan Neely subway death situation that’s happening, first of all, over the weekend. we had protestors or protestors, but I’m not sure what they’re protesting, right? They’re people that are turning out, protesting in the name of Jordan Neely, but it doesn’t even seem to me that they understand what it is they’re actually protesting. They jumped on the subway tracks in New York City. They actually caused different trains to stop, stop. and they had this face off with police. They entered into this little melee with police blaming officers for taking black lives. Take a look at this. 

Lives, lives. Are you, are y’all gonna… 

She’s obviously saying your officers take black lives, but that’s, police weren’t involved in this at all. Police weren’t even on the scene. I mean, you can criticize police for not not arresting this guy, not serving this warrant. There’s plenty of criticism of Eric Adams, management of the New York City police, especially as it pertains to Jordan E, but police were not involved at all with Jordan Neely. These protestors are so stupid. They are so dumb. They don’t even know what they’re protesting. They are brainwashed by the Black Lives Matter cults. They are completely blanket dumb in their minds. They have no idea what they’re even turning out for. They’re just agitated and angry and frothing at the mouth blaming police for something police weren’t involved with because Black Lives Matter wants to abolish police. They don’t just wanna defund police, they wanna abolish police. They wanna abolish prisons. 

They don’t want a criminal justice system because they don’t want a nation of law in order. Don’t want a nation that operates under the rule of law. They want a Marxist authoritarian regime. And these protestors, sad to say, are just brainwashed enough to be their vanguard. That’s the first thing. The second thing is, over the weekend it seemed that more information came out about who Jordan Neely was. We know that the Left was portraying him as being this Michael Jackson impersonator who just liked to entertain people on the subway. That video, by the way that went around was from like 10 years ago. We also know that since then, since about 2013, Jordan Neely had been arrested over 40 times. That’s very interesting and pertinent to this story. But it seems to me this is a thought I had when I was, when I was watching these, these protestors block the subway. 

It seems to me that conservatives lose the narrative on these situations because the Left is still far superior at the narrative storytelling, right? From a very strategic standpoint here, conservatives, our immediately, our immediate gut reaction is to engage in a defense of the Marine, right? To say, well, here’s who Jordan Neely was. Here’s his rap sheet, right? Here’s why we don’t know the facts yet, just to engage in a very, very very defense attorney like move and that’s right and proper in a society that’s based on facts and logic. But that’s not how you win cultural support. That’s not how you win popular opinion. And while we’re doing that, and we expect by debunking the Left’s accusations that the Left will drop those accusations and we forget to play offense, we play so much defense that we forget to play offense. And meanwhile, the offense that the Left is playing is passing around that video, which is very effective. 

It’s very effective to say, this guy just liked to do the moonwalk on the subway. He looked so much like Michael Jackson. Look at those moves, and they ignore everything about the situation that happened that day that Jordan Neely was threatening people, which prompted the Marine and someone else to restrain him until police arrived. They ignored the rap sheets of Jordan Neely because they’re ju they just want you to associate in your mind this one-to-one Jordan Neely Michael Jackson performer. So cute, so wonderful, so heartwarming. And conservatives are playing defense on accusations that the Leftist never even heard about because the mainstream media doesn’t talk about it because they’re only painting this narrative storytelling. And I suggest as conservatives and as Republicans, we become a little bit more self-aware about this because it is right, it is proper to, to undertake the defense of someone who is pretty clearly innocent, who’s pretty clearly not culpable, or if he is, we don’t have the facts to substantiate that yet, which means it would be a little bit of a jump to be making those allegations before we see that evidence for ourselves, but that we engage in some narrative storytelling as well to counter to play offense against the Left. 

And I have an example here, right? So as the Left is offering this Michael Jackson video, the Right, completely neglected to offer any kind of narrative storytelling about some of these prior arrests, some of these prior convictions, or the fact that Jordan nearly pled guilty to kidnapping a seven year old child. So my question today is, why doesn’t the right always refer to Jordan Neely as the child kidnapper who kidnapped a seven year old? Why doesn’t the right explain in narrative storytelling form that Jordan Neely didn’t just assault a senior citizen? That sounds bad, but why don’t we say he broke the nose bloodied and broke the nose, and broke the orbital bone of an old lady on the subway by slugging her. Like, why aren’t we being the storytellers that the Left is? Because our, we actually have a narrative story to tell in this case, a narrative story that paints a better picture of the character of Jordan Neely than that old Michael Jackson video. 

And I know they have the video, and that’s, that’s from a media standpoint, that’s an advantage. But a child kidnapper, I mean, come on. This guy grabbed a seven year old on the street. He was dragging her down the street. He then pled guilty to reckless endangerment of a child and served time in jail for that. And you’re telling me that the Left is winning this battle, this narrative of public or this battle for public opinion because they have a Michael Jackson video. The only reason they’re winning that is because we have neglected to tell that story. Every parent in this country should get a chill up their spine. Think about if you’re walking in New York City, you’re walking in the subway and you’re walking with your child, a seven year old, maybe a little bit too old to constantly be holding hands. It’s not like you’re carrying a toddler and your seven-year-old is snatched, snatched by a man that you don’t know, snatched by a man who’s clearly out of his mind, who runs away with your child. This is every parent’s worst nightmare. And then he pleads guilty to this, to reckless endangerment of this child is child is gonna be scarred for life. This is a horrific crime against humanity. 

But conservatives don’t tell these stories. They don’t speak in this in this way because they’re, they’re we’re stuck in this idea that if we just, if we just levy a defense based on the facts, that that will cause the Left to pull back their false allegations, let me tell you, that will never happen. The left will not stop with their false allegations, even if we debunk them. So we have to win the narrative war based on playing offense and not just defense, just the thought I had about this over the weekend. So let’s talk about the coronation. The coronation of King Charles also happened over the weekend, and I thought I couldn’t decide whether to talk about this on the show today because it’s been a little oversaturated in all of my social media feeds, a little oversaturated in the media at the same time. 

I don’t know about you guys, but I did look at some of the highlights. I did not get up at 6:00 AM to watch this. I was not interested in watching the livestream, but I looked at like the highlight reel. And by highlight reel, I mean, I looked at the videos that went viral on Twitter, and I had a couple of thoughts about this. It kind of depends on what level we wanna analyze this, right? Do we wanna analyze this on the shallow level, like just, oh, this is a reality show, or do we wanna analyze this on more of a, like a philosophical, governmental level? So I thought that we would start on the superficial level. Let’s take a picture, or let’s take a look at this picture of Jill Biden and her granddaughter Finnegan. They were at the coronation. It seems a little weird to me for the first lady of the United States to show up at the coronation of a British king, especially when the United States fought a literal war to free ourselves of the tyranny of the British monarchy. 

Why would we be celebrating? This? Seems a little weird to me, but what’s weirder is you’ll notice those colors, those are not just ugly outfits, although they are. You’ll see Finnegan wearing this fairy lemon, yellow color and Jill Biden wearing a sort of bright opal blue color next to each other. They look like the Ukrainian flag. And that’s exactly what they intended. Absolutely grotesque, couldn’t even wear red, white and blue couldn’t even focus on America, let alone the British monarchy. They had to make a political statement about Ukraine. The Biden administration disgusted me. Meghan Markle did not attend. She tried to steal the spotlight from California. I think she went on a hike with her friends to protect her, quote unquote, peace. listen, I said, when Harry’s memoir came out, I do feel for Megan Markle in the sense that I believe her when she says that she was in the crosshairs of the British media and that other members of the royal family planted negative stories about her in order to shield more senior members of the royal family from the scrutiny of the press. 

I believe that, and to be subject to that is horrendous. Don’t get me wrong, my sympathy shrinks just a little bit in her situation, given that she has turned Harry against his family, that she has convinced Harry to rethink his entire existence up until he met her to look at things. He says this in his book, that he, that things that happened in his life that he didn’t think were a problem at the time, he now realizes are problematic. That’s what’s called reeducation and brainwashing. Megan Mars brainwashed him into thinking that things in his life were oppressive or racist or what have you, because that fits her liberal worldview. And the result of this is, take a look at this picture of Harry. Harry looks so old, so tired, so worn. That actually made me feel bad for him. He looked really unhappy. 

 at this event, as you’ll see, he’s wearing, I think it’s called a day suit. He did have his military medals, but because he is not a working member of the royal family, he was not entitled to wear his, not entitled to wear his military uniform. The contrast, of course, is that Prince Andrew, who was implicated in everything related to Jeffrey Epstein was seen wearing his military garb, his official robes, his royal garb. But Harry, because he decided to live in California, wasn’t so to say that the royal family is a bit of a cup of drama. Tea would be the understatement of the year. One of the funniest things this, I did laugh my head off. So Meghan Markle didn’t attend. Harry attended for like an hour. I think the report was that he was in the UK for a total of 28 hours, right? 

He landed, he went to the coronation, and then within an hour of his father being crowned, he took off back to California. But he was seated two or three rows back from William, his brother. And in the official pictures, his face was obscured because can we bring this photo up? This is Princess Ann. she had a red feather on her, I don’t know what the official name of it, some kind of hat that she was wearing, some kind of British hat and was obscuring his face. So when this was protecting his privacy, if you will, if you, if you’ll allow me that little joke made him a non-story. Here’s, here’s my guess, I gotta tell you. I think it was intentional. I don’t think this was accidental. I don’t think that it was a coincidence. I think that the British royal family is just that petty. 

I think that they think about every little detail and that they certainly intended that to happen. I don’t know that for a fact, but that is my speculation. Kate Middleton looked absolutely stunning. Absolutely stunning. Like she looked like actual royalty. Look at this tiara was made, especially for her for this occasion. She did not wear a t rra from the from the monarchs stash of tiara’s. She looked every bit the part of the future queen of England, which was I thought, pretty fun to see. I love all of her style stuff. Then of course, we had the pomp and circumstance, and this is where it got a little bit weird for me, right? We can play this clip of Charles being crowned here, but when Charles was crowned king and then Camilla was crowned queen, there was a lot of prayers that happened during this. 

And you can see this is the Archbishop placing the crown on Charles’s head. I thought it was actually very awkward. It was very awkward. Like they couldn’t fit it on their head. Like, did you guys not try this on beforehand? I thought this pomp and circumstance was a bit much, I understand in the history of the world that monarchy doesn’t have to be something. They’re saying. God save the king monarchy doesn’t have to be something that’s evil or that’s bad. It actually has religious roots that a king and a queen are supposed to rule over their subjects in a way that would how do I even wanna say this rule over their subjects in accordance with God’s law. That’s actually the, that’s actually the entomology of monarchy. It’s supposed to have religious overtones or undertones, but I don’t think that that’s the case with the British monarchy. 

And so honestly, when I saw this, all I could think of was like, look at that smirk on now. Queen Camilla’s face, like side chicks everywhere, it can happen. That’s all I could think of. And it, there were comments like that everywhere on Twitter, so I know I wasn’t the only one. it all, it all seemed vaguely ridiculous to me. I know a lot of conservatives were like, we’re conservatives. We like tradition. And the answer to that is, yes, we do. When tradition has a foundation in something good and true and beautiful, but this was just a pageant. This doesn’t have a foundation in something good and true and beautiful because the British royal family have no power. They have social power. They have no power over the governance of the British monarchy anymore. They don’t make, they’re the Prime Minister and the House of Lords and the House of Commons. 

And that’s what makes the law in Britain. The king and the queen don’t. they’re also, I mean, now King Charles is the leader of the Church of England. Are you kidding me? King Charles has worshiped trees more than he is worshiped God, right? Like he unifier of the nation. I don’t think so. This guy’s tied to the World Economic Forum. He seems to worship sustainability more than he does. Jesus Christ. He’s had affairs. He’s, he’s the last person that I think of when I think of as a true religious leader. So I don’t know. The pageantry of the whole thing seemed absurd to me given the fact that the tradition, it was a mockery of tradition, actually. That’s what it was. It was a mockery of tradition because it was empty. Of the things that make tradition, valuable tradition in and of itself is the protection of something that’s good and true and beautiful. 

The protection of something that you wanna, that you wanna conserve and pass down in the same form that it existed for generations beforehand. And I didn’t see that in the coronation because what are they passing down? He’s not a religious leader. They don’t rule the nation. They’ve abandoned what monarchy is and now they’re just one giant reality TV show, which I’ll admit, it’s very entertaining. I like to follow it, but I felt for the coronation. Like I was more just here for the costume party. And again, this show has just been full of unpopular opinions. I’m not even sure what, what I’ve said today that I’m going to get more emails about. but if you wanna send me an email, go to lizwheeler.com and let me know what you think. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.