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.

After producing 'Am I Racist?' documentary, Matt Walsh says THIS is how we change the narrative



In 2022, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh produced a documentary called “What Is a Woman?” The film explored that very question — what does it mean to be a woman? — since society has decided to make that a controversial issue.

Now, Walsh has moved on to a new subject — white racism. In his latest documentary, “Am I Racist?” he explores the progressive agenda to push the narrative of systemic racism as a means of control.

Now, he joins James Poulos on “Zero Hour” to discuss the film.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

“Are you a racist?” James asks sarcastically.

“Well, I’m white, aren’t I?” says Walsh, adding that “the answer is automatically yes.”

“As you continue along the journey [of discovering your inherent racism], you just feel worse and worse about yourself,” he says. “That's really the goal. You just have to keep hating yourself more and more with each passing day.”

“The actual program is to get millions and millions of people to feel incredibly depressed and despairing and self-loathing, and then it’s much easier to control people when you have them in that state, right?” James asks.

“Exactly,” says Walsh, noting that the documentary, while technically a comedy, reveals a tragedy about society: “[Progressives’] goal is to build up resentment, self-loathing, suspicion, [and] guilt,” because “all of these things are very profitable to them.”

“Their core message is a simple one, which is that if you're a white person, then you are the villain of the story; you are history's great villain, and you have much to be ashamed of and much to atone for; although you can never really atone for it. ... If you're anywhere in the non-white category, which of course is a vast category, then you're automatically the victim; you're oppressed; you have no control over your life; you have no agency, no real autonomy. ... It's a very demoralizing and dehumanizing message to everybody.”

Unfortunately, “They've been very effective in pursuing that goal especially over the last decade,” Walsh laments.

“What’s it gonna take to roll it back?” James asks.

“I think what it ultimately takes is at this point, basically, just leaving people alone. I don't know that we need a competing message about racism. ... We don't need to talk about it all the time,” says Walsh, pointing to the famous “60 Minutes” interview with Morgan Freeman, during which he advised that we stop talking about racism.

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

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trans agenda OBLITERATED when man exposes LGBTQ hypocrisy at NYC Pride



Lionel McGloin might just be a genius.

McGloin is known for his “man on the street” style interviews that expertly point out the hypocrisy of the interviewees — and his latest string of interviews at the New York City Pride Festival might just be his best yet.

In one clip, McGloin interviews a young woman clad in a little rainbow Pride-themed dress.

“All these beautiful trans women out here, tell us about your transition, how it went,” he says in a classic deadpan demeanor.

“Can I hold this please,” the woman says, frustrated and reaching for the mic. “I have a question for you. Why are you asking me those questions?”

“We’re interviewing like trans women and stuff like that,” he answers.

“I’m not a trans woman,” she responds angrily.

“We’re fully supportive, fully supportive,” he continues, refusing to back down. “We just want to like talk about like the transitions, like the various challenges we’ve had.”

“I’ve never transitioned because I was born a woman,” she says.

As McGloin continues to purposely misunderstand her, she gets increasingly frustrated — to the point that she says exactly what conservatives have been saying all along.

“You thought I was a man?” she asks, offended.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” couldn’t be more impressed with McGloin’s work.

“Oh, so you do think there’s a difference between men and women,” Rubin says, adding, “When someone thinks that you were a trans woman aka man, then it suddenly gets offensive.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trudeau-appointed Supreme Court justice opts for 'person with a vagina' rather than 'woman' in rape case



Leftists captive to radical gender ideology routinely engage in mental gymnastics in order to reference the very immutable realities they seek to undermine.

The Biden administration replaced the term "mother" with "birthing person" in a public health section of a 2022 budget. Rather than use the word "woman," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) opted instead for "menstruating people."

It appears social constructivism has had a similar impact north of the border.

A Trudeau appointee on the Supreme Court of Canada recently took issue with a lower court's use of the word "woman." According to Justice Sheilah Martin, it would have been less confusing for an officer of the court to refer to a female rape victim — in a case that was not involving transvestites or non-straights — as a "person with a vagina."

Critics have roundly ridiculed the Canadian high court over its embrace of woke language conventions, especially when dealing with a case as serious as rape.

Background

The court took up two separate and unrelated rape cases linked only because the "Court of Appeals overturned the convictions on the basis of alleged errors of law in the trial judges' credibility and reliability assessments."

According to the Court of Appeals, the "trial judges erred in law by making assumptions about human behavior not grounded in the evidence."

One of the cases concerned Christopher James Kruk's rape conviction. Kruk reportedly found a woman "intoxicated, lost, and distressed one night in downtown Vancouver." He took her to his house where he claimed she spilled water on herself then passed out with her pants around her ankles. The victim testified that she woke up to find herself in a state of undress with Kruk actively violating her.

The trial judge stated, "[The complainant's] evidence is devoid of detail, yet she claims to be certain that she was not mistaken. She said she felt [Mr. Kruk's] penis inside her and she knew what she was feeling. In short, her tactile sense was engaged. It is extremely unlikely that a woman would be mistaken about that feeling."

The Court of Appeals indicated that the trial judge in Kruk's case erred in concluding that it would be unlikely a woman would be mistaken about the feeling of being raped.

'Engender[ing] confusion'

The Canadian Supreme Court overrode the Court of Appeals and upheld the original conviction at trial in its Friday ruling.

While Justice Martin agreed the trial judge's "conclusion was grounded in his assessment of the complainant's testimony," she took issue with his language.

Martin wrote that the trial judge's choice "to use the words 'a woman' may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion."

The judge, a former recipient of the YWCA's Advancement of Women Award, made sure to use her preferred turn of phrase in the same section, writing, "Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that they felt penile‑vaginal penetration, a trial judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken."

The female justice did not appear to provide any explanation for why the word "woman" might create confusion in a case concerning a man's alleged rape of a woman. However, it has been suggested she may have been attempting to address what she called "an improper generalization" between women in general and the victim.

Nevertheless, the Trudeau appointee's use of the term "person with a vagina" is the first such usage in a Canadian judicial decision, reported the National Post.

Following the Friday decision, the high court and Martin, a "person with a vagina," were roundly ridiculed.

Conservative parliamentarian Melissa Lantsman responded to the ruling, writing, "No, there is nothing confusing about the word 'woman,' it's common sense. It's not hateful, bigoted, wrong or unfair in anyway. This is just complete nonsense that moves nothing forward. It's not 'progress.'"

The X user Wall Street Silver wrote, "Everything ok up there Canada? We are sort of worried about you guys."

Libs of TikTok tweeted, "RIP Canada."

The Toronto Sun highlighted that two days after the ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada posted a possibly confusing message to social media honoring female judges.

"March 10, we celebrate International Day of Women Judges, which recognized the importance of the full and equal participation of women at all levels of the judiciary," said the post, which featured an image of Martin.

March 10, we celebrate International Day of Women Judges, which recognized the importance of the full and equal participation of women at all levels of the judiciary.\n\n\ud83d\udcf8 Justices Moreau, O\u2019Bonsawin, Karakatsanis, C\u00f4t\u00e9 and Martin
— (@)

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

Finally! Trump confirms list of potential VP candidates



People have been anxiously awaiting Donald Trump’s VP candidate list, and now they finally have their wish.

“Donald Trump discussed a short list of potential VP candidates during [a recent] town hall meeting,” says Sara Gonzales.

“So it's, of course, Governor Ron DeSantis from Florida, Vivek Ramaswamy, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Florida Republican Byron Donalds … and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.”

To gauge her followers’ feelings regarding the list of potential candidates, Sara posted the following poll on her Twitter page:

Unfortunately, “they only allow you to pick four choices, so I couldn't include all of them,” she says.

“Vivek’s running away with it at 50%, but Tulsi Gabbard at 20%, more than DeSantis?” she asks in disbelief.

“We are in such a cult-of-personality era in politics, where policy doesn't really matter,” says Glenn Beck chief researcher Jason Buttrill, adding that “Tulsi Gabbard [getting] 20% over an actual conservative with a proven track record like Ron DeSantis is terrifying.”

If you’re voting based on “the ability to destroy the left and track record, you vote 100% for Ron DeSantis; if you're voting for the smartest man in the room who’s got amazing ideas … you would vote for Vivek,” he continues, noting that Tulsi Gabbard may work well in a Trump administration as a member of the “State Department” or the “[Department of Defense]” but as far as policy goes, she’d be a terrible choice.

“She was a Bernie bro,” says Sara in agreement.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the video below.


Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Conservative thanks crazy Dems for inspiring new gender book that is absurd in all the RIGHT ways



With everything going on in the world today, it’s become increasingly hard to be funny.

The amount of humorous content generated unwittingly by Democrats makes it hard to one-up them. Thankfully, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon is here to take on that challenge.

One of the latest ventures undertaken by Dillon and his team at the Babylon Bee is a book that does just that: “The Babylon Bee Guide to Gender.”

The book answers serious questions Americans might have, like how many genders are there, really? How do you find out if you’re, in fact, a woman? And should Nikki Haley have become a biologist before declaring her womanhood every five seconds during Fox News’ first GOP presidential primary debate?

Glenn Beck sits down with Dillon to review these questions, and their conversation is every bit as hilarious as one might hope.

Part of the book is dedicated to a timely and important test that begins with the question: “Still not sure if you’re a woman?”

“Are you always cold?” Glenn reads, laughing. “Has a human popped out of you?”

“Have you ever decorated a bed with six or more pillows?” he continues, adding, “I refuse to answer.”

“This just allows us to draw general inferences though,” Dillon interjects, adding, “but because we’re not biologists we can’t say definitely. This quiz will give you a good idea.”

“We had this problem,” he continues, “for most of human history. We didn’t have science, we were all a bunch of bigots, and we thought that there were just men and women. And then science was invented very recently, and they determined that men can get pregnant and that women can suffer testicle injuries.”

Dillon is proud of his creation but owes a lot of credit to hilarious Democrats who have made it possible.

“You really don’t have to satirize this stuff. You really just have to hold it up there and say, ‘Look how absurd this is,’ and that’s kind of what that book does.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Australia's first female prime minister ridiculed after calling 'what is a woman?' a 'gotcha' question, struggling for over 4 minutes to answer it



During an event Friday concerning "women's advancement," Australia's first female prime minister was confronted with what proved to be a difficult question, namely, "What is a woman?"

Julia Gillard's tortured four-minute response, wherein she managed to avoid ever mentioning those immutable characteristics that distinguished her from all her predecessors, has prompted ridicule and contempt internationally.

Gillard, a Welsh-born lawyer, became Australian prime minister in June 2010. Facing an abysmal approval rating, her left-leaning Labor Party ousted her three years later, but not before she could issue her famous lecture about misogyny to her soon-to-be successor across the aisle, Tony Abbott.

The former prime minister joined Frances Adamson, the governor of South Australia, at Government House in Adelaide last week to discuss "the issues, challenges and opportunities facing Australian women."

At one point during the event, women's rights activist and comedian Biddy O'Loughlin asked a set of penetrating questions germane to the topic at hand: "What is a woman, and do you agree with Queensland's Attorney-General Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman that trans women are women and with UK's leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer that some women can have a penis?"

Gillard said she would be happy to answer, but prefaced her response by expressing concern that "this has turned into a kind of 'gotcha' parlor game."

Rather than partake in such a "game," Gillard suggested that it would be prudent instead to "come at this once again from first principles."

On the basis of first principles, Gillard concluded, "There are a number of people who genuinely believe that they are trapped in the wrong body, and they want to be recognized as the gender their mind and soul have always told them that they are — and that doesn't go one way. It goes both ways. You know, people who have transitioned from being men to being women and women who have transitioned to being men."

She added, "I think we've just got to say, like we'd want to show everybody else in the community love, inclusion, and respect, we should do that for each of those individuals."

Concerning what constitutes a "woman" in 2023, Gillard appeared willing to defer to transvestites, saying, "Transsexual women believe that part of that inclusion is referring to them the way they want to be referred to, using the pronouns that they want to have used about them. I would seek to do that in that circumstance."

Australia's first woman prime minister then intimated the controversy over whom is meant by "woman" is not "inherent in the discussion."

— (@)

Genevieve Gluck, the co-founder of the feminist publication Reduxx, tweeted in response to the video of Gillard's response, "Even politicians are afraid of upsetting the very group of men that women are now expected to invite into our intimate spaces. Women are not a thought experiment - we can't defend what we can't define."

Australian politician Moira Deeming, an independent member of the Victorian Legislative Council, noted, "Tragically, it was our first female Prime Minister that presided over the erasure of sex based rights in Australia. Now she frames reasonable questions & complaints about the consequences, as petty bigotry."

The Spectator Australia reported that toward the end of Gillard's time at the helm of the nation, she oversaw the enactment of an amendment to the country's Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 which eliminated the definition of "woman," previously recognized to mean "a member of the female sex irrespective of age." The so-called Gillard amendments also erased the definition of "man" from the SDA.

Katherine Deves, writing for the Spectator, noted, "The Gillard amendments imposed the biggest game of wilful pretend imaginable on women and girls, now forced to suspend their reality and believe that a ‘penis-owner’ is a woman, because he says so."

Sky News host Rita Panahi blasted Gillard over her latest response, saying, "We've seen that question stump many gutless bureaucrats and politicians, but I never thought that Australia's first female prime minister, the first woman in the lodge as leader of this great nation, would be incapable of answering 'what is a woman?' but here we are."

"Around four minutes of idiotic waffle that shows where Australia’s ... first female prime minister stands on this most crucial issue," continued Panahi. "She stands firmly with the trans activists that have hijacked the left and modern feminism."

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

Next Time You’re Sparring With A Leftist, Try Asking A Question

Conservatives cornered in spaces of conformist ideology would do well to master the powerful rhetorical weapon of Socrates.

To The Angry TikTok Feminists: Try Applying Some Lip Gloss

Do these women look liberated?