Accountability is the best way to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy



The nation changed on September 10, 2025. An assassin’s bullet cut short the life of Charlie Kirk while he was speaking on a Utah college campus.

The coward who pulled the trigger chose political violence over debate. Reports indicate the weapon and its ammunition carried “anti-fascist” slogans — a chilling reminder that ideology now drives some Americans to kill.

Do what Charlie did. Do what Christ commands. Love your neighbor. Show grace. Demand justice — but refuse to become the thing you despise.

Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die. The founder of Turning Point USA was murdered for defending what he believed, walking into academia’s den of hostility, and calling students and faculty back to truth. He embodied both the American spirit and, more importantly, Christian faith. Kirk welcomed argument, offered the gospel, and lived it in an age when many Americans are turning away from Christ.

His wife should not be left without her husband, and his children should not be left fatherless. They certainly should not have to endure online mobs mocking and defaming their murdered husband and father. Yet, they do. Teachers, federal employees, even military personnel — people sworn to serve the public — joined in the sick celebration.

An active-duty Army captain called Kirk “a monstrous ghoul.” A Navy petty officer wrote “better luck next time friend.” An Army sergeant piled on. A Fort Bragg elementary school teacher employed by the Department of War branded him “a garbage human.” Most grotesque of all, a War Department supervisor posted that Kirk “got what he deserved,” sneering, “rest in pieces,” and warning that more killings could come for “those who choose to spread hate and division.”

This is not fringe behavior. It is radicalization in plain sight, coming from people in positions of trust. And it has metastasized. On the left-wing social platform BlueSky, users are openly fantasizing about assassinations of Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andy Ngo, President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Matt Walsh, J.K. Rowling, and more. When hate this brazen circulates unchecked, another attack is not hard to imagine.

Regardless of your opinion of Charlie Kirk — his politics, his faith, or his legacy — the American way of life rests on peaceful discourse and on the Judeo-Christian command to love our neighbor. That foundation is under assault.

But not all the signs are dark: Younger Americans are turning to Christ in increasing numbers. If anything can pull us back from the abyss of political murder, it is the renewal of faith.

Ephesians 4:26-27 admonishes, “In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.” Anger over this atrocity is justified. What we do with that anger will determine whether America chooses vengeance or redemption.

RELATED: Why Charlie Kirk’s assassination will change us in ways this generation has never seen

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

Kirk wanted to be remembered as a man courageous in faith. To honor that, we must follow Christ’s example. Forgive those who dance on his grave. Forgive those who cheer for the next act of political bloodshed. Forgive even the soldiers, sailors, and public servants who lent legitimacy to his assassination with their words.

Forgiveness does not mean forgetting. It does not mean impunity. Without accountability, this poison spreads and more violence follows. But accountability can be Christ-like: firm, just, and free of vengeance.

So to those who read the online bile and feel tempted to answer hate with hate: Turn to prayer. Do what Charlie did. Do what Christ commands. Love your neighbor. Show grace. Demand justice — but refuse to become the thing you despise.

That is how we ensure the assassin’s bullet does not win.

Mainstream media turns a blind eye to vicious stabbing of young Ukrainian woman



The mainstream media made their bias known after refusing to cover the fatal stabbing of a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee.

Iryna Zarutska was brutally victimized on a train in North Carolina on August 22, suffering stab wounds in the throat before eventually being declared dead at the scene. Zarutska's alleged stabber was later identified as 34-year-old Decarlos Brown, who was charged with first-degree murder in relation to the case.

'This is a greater outrage than the death of every BLM martyr combined times a thousand.'

Records from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department show that Brown has repeatedly been arrested and convicted of serious offenses, including armed robbery and felony larceny.

News of Zarutska's death rapidly spread online and sparked outrage, yet mainstream media outlets outside of local news have continued to ignore the story entirely.

RELATED: Horrific video sparks outrage after young Ukrainian woman is fatally stabbed, allegedly by repeat offender

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Critics have pointed to the media's double standard when it comes to covering politically convenient tragedies. Mainstream outlets amplified the death of George Floyd in 2020, writing tens of thousands of articles related to the incident. The same publications that gave wall-to-wall coverage of Floyd's death are now turning a blind eye to Zarutska's.

"Despite the release of an explosive video that has received massive public outcry, as of 4:45 pm eastern today, NONE of our major news outlets except @FoxNews have covered the murder of Iryna Zarutska," the Daily Wire's Megan Basham said in a post on X on Sunday. "Not one."

"This is a greater outrage than the death of every BLM martyr combined times a thousand," the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh said in a post on X.

RELATED: Jasmine Crockett's jaw-dropping defense of criminals: 'They literally are trying to survive'

Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Other commentators like Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk have pointed to race as a predominant factor in the media's selective coverage. Kirk argues that the difference in coverage between Zarutska's murder and Floyd's death ultimately comes down to whether the narrative is politically convenient.

"Dear CNN, WaPo, NYT, ABC, NBC etc etc," Kirk said in a post on X Sunday. "If you want to know why your ratings are in the tank and no one likes you, look no further than the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska who moved to US to escape war in Ukraine, a story you refuse to tell.

"Sadly she couldn’t survive the Democrats’ criminal justice system," Kirk added. "Yet you wouldn’t shut up or stop villainizing Daniel Penny, a hero, who probably stopped a murder just like [hers]. Why? Because he was a straight white American male and the perp was black. Shame on you. Genuinely."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tim Kaine shockingly compares the Declaration of Independence to Iran's theocratic regime: 'Extremely troubling'



Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia failed to understand one of America's basic founding principles and instead likened it to the Iranian regime.

In a Wednesday committee hearing, Kaine insisted that our natural rights are derived from the government, not from God. Kaine went on to say that the notion that our natural rights come from the Creator is "extremely troubling" and compared it to Iran's theocracy.

Unfortunately for Kaine, the founding fathers disagree with him.

"The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator. That's what the Iranian government believes," Kaine said. "It's a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law [sic] ... and they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator."

"The statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling."

RELATED: White House slams Massie's Epstein bill as a 'very hostile act' — some Republicans sign on anyway

— (@)

Unfortunately for Kaine, the founding fathers disagree with him.

The Declaration of Independence makes very clear that our natural rights come from God and not from the government, as Kaine suggested. In the second paragraph, the Declaration states that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Prominent conservatives and politicians were quick to correct Kaine's misunderstanding of our nation's core values, even suggesting that he is "not fit to serve."

"This is a remarkable moment from Tim Kaine," the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh said in a post on X. "He just announced that the core foundational principle of our country, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, is 'extremely troubling' and 'theocratic.' He should be immediately removed from office. Anyone who rejects our nation's foundational principles is obviously not fit to serve."

RELATED: RFK Jr. makes crystal clear to the CDC mutineers: The restoration of public trust 'won't stop'

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"Our rights don’t come from government or the DNC. They come from God," Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a post on X. "[Tim Kaine], I suggest the Dems go back and read the words of our Founding Fathers."

Kaine's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Matt Walsh's crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation



On Wednesday, the Supreme Court released its decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-related medical interventions for minors.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, was a 6-3 decision, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The decision is a historic breakthrough in the fight against transgender ideology. Similar to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision for abortion, the Supreme Court has sent the issue back to the states by clarifying that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit state-level restrictions on sex-change procedures and puberty blockers for minors.

Skrmetti called out the Biden DOJ for what it was really doing: 'Attacking a bipartisan law that protects children from irreversible harm.'

This case has been building since September 2022 when the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh blew the whistle on Vanderbilt University for practicing gender-modification surgeries on minors. Walsh helped bring the issue to the attention of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. The Tennessee legislature took action and passed legislation the following February to ban the drugs and surgeries used to transition minors. The bill passed the Tennessee House 77-16, with 13 Democrats voting against it. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) signed the bill into law on March 2, 2023.

The left did not let the issue go quietly. On April 20, 2023, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Tennessee, claiming the law discriminated against children on the basis of sex. Six days later, the Biden Department of Justice joined in the legal attack, claiming the Tennessee law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. DOJ Assistant Attorney Kristen Clarke decried the law, saying it denied children "access to necessary medical care."

RELATED: 'Rogue' Biden judge ignores biological truth, blocks Trump's common-sense passport policy

Vladimir Vladimirov/Getty Images

Skrmetti called out the Biden DOJ for what it was really doing: "Attacking a bipartisan law that protects children from irreversible harm."

Although District Judge Eli Richardson initially blocked the law, his decision was overturned that September by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the law finally went into effect.

Rather than admit defeat, the ACLU and Biden DOJ appealed the case, filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. The following June, the court agreed to hear the case, and oral arguments took place on December 4, 2024. The Supreme Court typically takes around six months to decide complex cases, making this June 18 decision a fairly standard timeline.

'Congress has no excuses left. If they have any moral sense, they will ... end this evil industry once and for all.'

The decision has been met with triumphant approval from conservatives. In a statement to Blaze Media, Matt Walsh summarized his work on the issue: "Three years ago, we ripped the lid off Vanderbilt’s sickening pediatric clinic. That ignited Tennessee’s child mutilation ban. Today, the Supreme Court upheld this protection of children and we won."

At the heart of the legal issue was the question of whether the Tennessee law discriminated on the basis of sex. If so, it would be subject to heightened legal scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, clarified that the law did not do so. Rather, the law "prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex."

Consequently, the law "is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and satisfies rational basis review."

RELATED: Behind the rainbow curtain: Who is funding the trans agenda targeting kids?

Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

In a statement to Blaze Media, Dr. Brad Watson, a legal scholar at Hillsdale College’s Graduate School of Government, concurred with the majority opinion: "The Court was correct in refusing to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to a law prohibiting transgender treatment of minors. The majority recognizes that judges have no expertise in such matters and possess no constitutional warrant to second-guess legislative determinations so long as those determinations rest on a rational basis."

Similar to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, this decision gives states the freedom to legislate on the issue. The question that remains for conservatives is whether they will be able to effectively follow up on this decision with meaningful legislation at the state or national level.

Matt Walsh is among those pushing for the GOP to take decisive action to cement this victory. In his statement to Blaze Media, he called on Congress to ban these surgeries at a national level: "Congress has no excuses left. If they have any moral sense, they will end these state-by-state fights with a federal ban and end this evil industry once and for all."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Glenn Greenwald Scandal Proves Tolerance Is Not A Virtue — It’s High Time Conservatives Start Acting Like It

this entire episode should be taken as a lesson for conservatives

Libraries Are Indoctrinating Your Kids, Not Fighting Censorship

Move aside, Goodnight Moon. The newest children’s classics are hitting library shelves near you … and they’re kinky in all the colors of the rainbow. I walked into my local Chicago Public Library (CPL) branch, heading over to the holds section to pick up my newest read. Book secured, I went to check out, passing […]

Today's most urgent question: What is a man?



In my last piece, I reflected on the state of the NFL’s relationship with the rise of data analytics and how it’s been contributing to the progress of the transhumanist agenda.

It made me ponder more deeply the questions we as human beings are confronted with as we hurtle headfirst into a more and more technology-dependent society.

The things that gave men meaning in their lives have all but disappeared. And how do the masculinity gurus of conservatism address this? They cope.

As we become more dependent on technology to complete the tasks that human beings have always performed, we’ve come to the point where we must ask ourselves … what exactly are we?

Division of labor

My mind naturally began to think about the division of labor within traditional family households.

A wife and mother would traditionally be a homemaker and nurturer of the children. A husband and father would traditionally be the one who would labor out in the world and bring home the income and provisions.

This gender-oriented division of labor came into being almost entirely out of necessity. Sure, maybe social ideologies sprang up over time about gender roles that may or may not have been healthy. But fundamentally, a husband and wife performed the roles they did because a man can do things only a man can do and a woman can do things only a woman can do.

But now, we live in a different world, a very affluent, technology-dependent world. Everything is taken care of for us. Machines do almost all the essential work for us, and it’s only a matter of time until they do the entirety of it.

The American economy isn’t a manufacturing one any more. When most Americans go to “work,” it is not to labor but to provide some kind of service, which both men and women can do. And compared to the rest of the world, we make a lot of money performing these services.

Idle hands

It’s given us Americans security and time. And with security and time, we’ve gotten bored. So bored that we make up new problems for ourselves just to give us an artificial sense of insecurity. People are so free from their traditional gender roles (and therefore actual problems) that they now identify as new genders.

That conservative commentator Matt Walsh was able to produce an entire documentary dedicated to answering the question “What Is a Woman?” is a clear sign of how out of hand the situation has gotten. Everyone had a big, hearty laugh as they watched some blue-haired child psychologists squirm and struggle to define what an adult female human being is in exact terms.

But the problem is real, and it’s much deeper than a predatory pharmaceutical industry pushing kids and adults into gender-affirming surgery.

The necessary question

To fully appreciate the scope of the question “What is a woman?” we must ask the necessary (and more urgent) follow-up question: What is a man?

Seriously, what is a man in the 21st century … and beyond? It’s the most important question that absolutely no one is thinking about.

Think about what I’ve already said within this one article. We live in a time when all traditional roles have been stripped from both genders due to affluence, which is due to the development of automated technology.

And because we don’t make anything any more, what do we offer as an economy instead? Health care, education, retail, and entertainment.

Or in other words – nurturing, child-rearing, homemaking, and sex.

Monetizing the feminine

Any role that’s ever been traditionally feminine has been taken out of the households and plugged straight into the economy. In his book "The New Politics of Sex," political theorist Dr. Stephen Baskerville cites G.K. Chesterton on the matter:

If people cannot mind their own business, it cannot possibly be made economical to pay them to mind each other’s business; and still less to mind each other’s babies. ... The whole really rests on a plutocratic illusion of an infinite supply of servants. When we offer any other system as a "career for women," we are really proposing that an infinite number of them should become servants, of a plutocratic or bureaucratic sort. Ultimately, we are arguing that a woman should not be a mother to her own baby, but a nursemaid to somebody else’s baby. But it will not work, even on paper. We cannot all live by taking in each other’s washing, especially in the form of pinafores.

Motherly instincts have merely been bureaucratized, resulting in every woman either being cooped up in an office doing meaningless paperwork or cooped up in a shoebox apartment making OnlyFans content. Or both.

No market for manhood

Meanwhile, masculine roles got absolutely and systematically shafted by modernity.

Wanna get married to the woman of your dreams and raise a family? Sorry, the no-fault divorce and state welfare machineries have all but made real, long-lasting marriage an unappealing artifact of history.

Wanna take masculine pride in your occupation or the money you make? Good luck. America hasn't been a manufacturing economy in decades. All productive jobs involving real labor have been outsourced to China, automation, or H-1B immigrants.

Any man who currently has a “masculine” job such as farmer, truck driver, construction worker, or oil rigger will be replaced by a robot running the latest ChatGPT woke programming within the next 25 years.

That’s where we're at as men, and that's where we're going. We've been systematically disenfranchised. We've lost the means to exhibit patriarchal authority over the family unit due to the failure of marriage policy, and all opportunities to pursue productive labor and upward mobility are quickly dwindling due to automation.

The things that gave men meaning in their lives have all but disappeared.

Plato's man cave

And how do the masculinity gurus of conservatism address this?

They cope. They preach “primitivism” as the escape hatch from modernity. Go hunt. Go chop wood. Drink whiskey. Eat beef.

Even Matt Walsh gives his diagnosis on how to be a man: Don’t take any sick days from work.

Yeah, Stacey is girlbossing as she runs up racks with her nursing job and OnlyFans side hustle with $500K saved up in the bank while you're busy telling young, impressionable boys to man up and stay committed to an office job that will have him replaced within a decade, all from the comfort of your man-cave studio.

There is no “manning up” in 2024 and beyond. Wake up. The system has all but wiped out everything that once allowed men to find meaning in their lives.

So we need to tackle the question seriously and sincerely.

What is a man?

'Am I Racist?' is boring Borat, 'Beetlejuice' baffles, McCarthy ungrateful 'Brat'



Damon Packard's movie diary

Damon Packard is the Los Angeles-based filmmaker behind such underground classics as “Reflections of Evil,” “The Untitled Star Wars Mockumentary,” “Foxfur,” and “Fatal Pulse.” His AI-generated work recently appeared as interstitials for the 18th annual American Cinematheque Horrorthon and can be enjoyed on his YouTube channel. After a long day making movies or otherwise making ends meet, he likes to unwind with late-night excursions to the multiplexes and art house cinemas of greater Los Angeles. For previous installments of the "Diary," see here.

September 15, "Am I Racist?" (d. Justin Folk), AMC Century City 15

Wobbled into an 11 p.m. show of "Am I Racist?" last night in Century City. As seemingly ripe as this subject matter is for satire, I found it mostly dull and not all that funny.

What struck me is how oddly staged the whole thing felt. These bizarre DEI, white privilege education workshops can't possibly be real, can they? People actually pay that kind of money to attend them? These people are real?

Anyone who still has some brain function knows how ridiculous and reality-manipulating the whole woke thing is — like any mainstream media-driven profiteering scam the dopey brain-dead masses fall for (take your pick, the world revolves around trillions of scams within scams).

So it's all about finding clever and humorous ways to point out the obvious hypocrisies and broken logic.

Walsh is no Borat, Eric Andre, Chris Morris, or Louis Theroux. This kind of humor is tricky, and it takes someone of unique charisma.

September 5, "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" (d. Tim Burton), AMC Century City 15

Heading into a nice, completely empty midnight show of this "Beetlejuice" stuff. Perfect night. Everyone wiped out from the heat, this whole place is quiet and empty. Will report back but I can't imagine I'll have anything of interest to say.

[Later]

"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" was weird. It included some really odd needle drops — the Bee Gees, Donna Summer, and Richard Harris' "MacArthur Park" (which reappears in the climax in the form of Danny Elfman's orchestral version). Strangest of all was the use of Pino Donaggio's "Carrie" theme at the end.

I wonder if this was just music Burton happened to be listening to while making or cutting the movie. It was nice hearing these pieces in a theater, but do those songs really work for the scene? Eh.

I think Burton is probably an insightful, intelligent person with whom I'd enjoy discussing art, cinema, history, old Hollywood, etc. But for me his films range from mediocre to baffling to awful.

I just don't know what the hell to make of this thing. Danny DeVito frothing at the mouth as a disgusting dead janitor? Too much goofy, cartoony weirdness for this to work for me. And for a guy who loves stop motion, Burton includes some pretty mediocre stop-motion sequences here.

Maybe if I were feeling generous I'd give it a semi-pass — who else is giving Catherine O'Hara lead roles these days?

September 4 "Tightrope" (1984, d. Richard Tuggle)

Watched "Tightrope" (1984) last night at a friend's house. I remember well when this played at the Mann National Westwood. Some have described it as Eastwood's "giallo." It's certainly very stylish, dark, sleazy, and moody and often feels more like a slasher movie than a thriller.

I did wonder if this was originally intended for another actor. Eastwood plays a divorced police detective named Wes Block, who is raising two daughters and five dogs. He also loves to have kinky sex with hookers while on the job. At one point he tells Geneviève Bujold he'd "love to lick the sweat off" her body, which you almost can't believe he just said.

At the time, Gene Siskel praised Eastwood for "risking his star charisma [to play] a louse." The villain is a sadistic psycho killer who creeps around stalking women in bizarre devil masks; he ends up beating and possibly raping Block's daughter. Eastwood cast his own 12-year-old daughter Alison in the role.

September 4, "Brats" (d. Andrew McCarthy)

I did not expect to get through this, but somehow I watched this entire thing. Andrew McCarthy (whom I've always liked for his charming, neurotic quirkiness) did a good job.

At the same time I can't believe he actually had the gall to make an entire movie griping about his career.

Let's see: The world is collapsing in chaos, the starving masses swarm the streets like something out of "Soylent Green," and here comes poor Andrew McCarthy with a 90-minute, soul-searching documentary about how hard it was on him and his rich, beautiful celebrity friends when an article in New York magazine called them the "Brat Pack."

September 3, "Shakedown" (1988, d. James Glickenhaus), CineFile Video

CineFile screening nights continued tonight with James Glickenhaus' spectacular overlooked 1988 action thriller/courtroom drama "Shakedown." Modern, CGI-heavy action movies with bloated $200 million budgets can't even come close to what Glickenhaus could do with $6 million in 1987.

Nowadays you probably wouldn't even be allowed to attempt some of the stunts they pull off. It's a reminder of how competitive the field was at the time. Stuntmen were eager to keep pushing boundaries and would take major risks, especially in small-budget films. You can also notice this in many of the Hong Kong films of the era.

Needless to say, those days are over. Glickenhaus wisely got out of the film biz and now runs a company that makes high-performance race cars.

August 30, "The Hustle — Part 2" (d. The Dor Brothers)

Finally, someone else doing something somewhat creative with AI, showing the true faces of these ridiculous politicians, technocrats, and leaders.

That's exactly what all these idiots on the world's stage are: a bunch of gangsters, rubbing it in our faces like James Cagney with that grapefruit in "The Public Enemy."

August 29

A 3 a.m., Uber Eats delivery dragged me all the way out to Canoga Park on Topanga Canyon Blvd. (I made $20 for the whole night; sad, I know.)

I did get to revisit the former site of a movie theater from my youth, the Baronet: a huge, 500-seat auditorium with sticky floors. I remember seeing both "Damien: Omen 2" and "The Awakening" here at nearly empty showings in the early '80s when I lived in Chatsworth. It closed around 1986.

This isn't too far from the Topanga Twin Cinema, where I sat through "An American Werewolf in London" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" twice in a row in 1981. I believe it's a Crate & Barrel now.

August 27, "A Day at the Beach" (1970, d. Simon Hesera)

This is one of most fascinating films I've ever seen. I watched the entire thing this morning, completely mesmerized.

This was supposed to be a Roman Polanski project, but he ended up handing over directing duties to Simon Hesera. Polanski is credited only as writer and second unit director.

But this strange, dream-like tale of miserable, angry characters on a rainy and cold beachfront is so artfully done that I suspect it's very much a Polanski film — much in the same way that "Poltergeist" was clearly directed by Steven Spielberg, despite being credited to Tobe Hooper.

I'm surprised it's been so overlooked for so many years. It sticks with you.

Will Matt Walsh’s 'Am I Racist?' actually change anyone's mind?



It's a great time to release a conservative documentary.

Since Dinesh D’Souza’s "2016: Obama’s America," the left wing's grip on the genre has weakened, making way for a proliferation of right-leaning films like "The Plot Against the President," "Alex's War," and "Hoaxed."

The movie presents a vivid example of the ugliness and abuse that virtue signaling can draw out of normal people seeking approval.

Now comes Matt Walsh with "Am I Racist?" Can it attain the kind of mainstream theatrical success formerly reserved for blatantly liberal fare like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Bowling for Columbine"?

Preaching to the choir?

I have two questions I always ask when evaluating conservative documentaries. First: Does the filmmaker actually have something to say, or is he just using the film to promote his personal brand? Second: Has the filmmaker worked to present a genuinely persuasive argument, or has he settled for preaching to the choir?

As with his previous documentary, "What Is a Woman?" Walsh has picked a promising subject. And like its predecessor, "Am I Racist?" features Walsh blindly stumbling around the modern world, asking basic questions while pretending to be baffled. He's just a confused innocent earnestly trying to understand the latest bizarre concepts mainstreamed by obscurantist left-wing intellectuals.

In "What Is a Woman?" it was trans and gender ideology. In "Am I Racist?" it's DEI policies and anti-racist activism.

Walsh definitely has something to say, even if his characteristic acerbic personality often upstages his message. That just leaves the question of whether he can convince anyone not already fed up with the totalizing view of racial identity permeating every aspect of American life.

Very nice!

To that end, it is worth looking at the film’s approach. As my colleague Christian Toto puts it, Walsh is effectively trying to reinvent the Borat strategy of goading people into revealing their worst beliefs and prejudices by pretending to be an ally.

The film introduces Walsh as a bumbling white man grappling with the challenges of the post-2020 world, going on a journey of self-discovery to become a certified DEI expert and interviewing leading progressive voices like Saira Rao and Robin DiAngelo.

For the film to be truly persuasive, it needs to take the logic of modern critical race theory to it's inevitable conclusion. It needs to get the core of what “anti-racism” means in a modern context and why it’s bad on principle: its tendency to answer inequality with illiberal, easily exploitable social engineering, the way its relentless targeting of whites for their "privilege" and alleged sense of "supremacy" emboldens actual white nationalist groups to use the same arguments.

It needs to expose the cynical, self-perpetuating grift of professional anti-racists like Ibram X. Kendi, who argues, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Racist uncle

Walsh comes remarkably close to accomplishing this. "Am I Racist?" is comprised of several hidden camera group sessions with Walsh in attendance, asking questions and nudging the dialogue in the direction he wants.

However, in its relentless desire to be a comedy, the film frequently stumbles.Throughout these hidden camera meetings, Walsh interjects and asks questions that derail the conversations, which proves detrimental from a journalistic perspective. He’s interrupting his enemies while they’re making mistakes.

"Am I Racist?" works best toward the end, when Walsh hosts a DEI group discussion. He rolls out an old man in a wheelchair, identifying him as his uncle who told a racist joke. Walsh proceeds to castigate the man (actually an actor), leading two women in the crowd to join in, yelling obscenities at their target and bragging that they've cut off their entire families for being racist. Here, the movie presents a vivid example of the ugliness and abuse that virtue signaling can draw out of normal people seeking approval.

Affirmative reaction

Unlike "What Is a Woman?" "Am I Racist?" explicitly hopes to appeal to mainstream moviegoers. It's done fairly well with them so far, grossing $4.75 million in its opening weekend and landing in fourth place at the box office.

Conservatives are largely turning out to support the film, with Lutheran Satire creator Hans Fiene praising the film as “genuinely hilarious” and “very well done.”

The most notable, and surprising, nonpartisan review of the film has come from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns, who generally approved of the film as funny, thought-provoking, and “a good time, no alcohol required,” while highlighting the disconnect between activists and the desire of regular people not to have to think about race every second of their lives.

More positive reviews coming from nonpartisan or centrist content creators would help assuage my fear that "Am I Racist?" won't have much reach beyond the conservative media-sphere.

As "Podcast of the Lotus Eaters" points out, the film's unabashed mockery of DEI — its steadfast refusal to take it seriously or consider it worthy of reverent attention — may be persuasion enough.

And yet the fact that progressives are brigading "Am I Racist?" so effectively is a sobering reminder of the vast propaganda machine at their disposal. Winning the hearts and minds of open-minded non-conservatives will take all of the creative and commercial power the right can muster.

Jase Robertson shares the film he says 'needs to be watched by society'



“Very seldom do I recommend things to watch,” says Jase Robertson, who isn’t much of a media guy.

However, last weekend, Jase’s wife happened to bring up Matt Walsh’s 2022 documentary “What Is a Woman?”

Jase was shocked to discover that a film with such a title existed, and so, intrigued, he watched it.

His conclusion is that “What Is a Woman?” “needs to be watched by society.”

“All this guy did, to his credit, was simply ask a question,” he says, pointing to the “global controversy” that gender has become.

“When [Walsh] asked that question,” says Jase, he discovered that “the belief has become popular among those who attack the gender God-defined roles that it's impossible for them to answer.”

Jase shares his bewilderment that the socially acceptable answer when it comes to someone’s gender is basically “let the kid decide what they want to be.”

“They'll say your gender is whatever you want to be, including any kind of animal. I mean you can be a cat, you know, you can be a wolf,” he says.

“That’s nonsense,” is all Phil Robertson has to say about it.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.