Ep. 1421 - This So-Called “Conservative” Is Trying To Convince You To Vote For Kamala Harris. Here’s Why That’s An Insane Idea
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a prominent Never Trumper made this case this week for why conservatives should vote for Kamala Harris. But voting for Kamala Harris, if you call yourself a conservative, is incoherent and incredibly foolish at the very best. Also, the Left accuses JD Vance of hypocrisy after an alleged photo of Vance wearing drag at a Halloween party in college surfaces. I'll explain why they're undermining their own position by making that argument. And a primitive tribe on an island in the Indian Ocean viciously murders any intruders who venture close to their borders. What do they have to teach us about immigration policy? More than you might think.
Ep.1421
- - -
DailyWire+:
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | Get tickets this Thursday, Aug 15: https://www.amiracist.com
Get tickets to Backstage LIVE at the Ryman, tomorrow, August 14! https://bit.ly/46igytS
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Policygenius - Get your free life insurance quote & see how much you could save: http://policygenius.com/Walsh
Ramp - Now get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a prominent Never Trumper made the case this week for why conservatives should vote for Kamala Harris, but voting for Kamala Harris if you call yourself a conservative is incoherent and incredibly foolish at the very best.
Also, the left accuses J.D.
Vance of hypocrisy after an alleged photo of Vance wearing drag at a Halloween party and college services.
I'll explain why they're undermining their own position by making that argument.
When a primitive tribe on an island in the Indian Ocean viciously murders any intruders who venture close to their borders, what do they have to teach us about immigration policy in this country?
More than you might think.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
We're going to take a look at some of the things that are
happening in the world.
It's like, you know, going to the DMV.
But sitting here talking on today's cultural and political issues has taken at least a decade off my life, which is why it's so important to stop putting off finding the perfect life insurance policy.
PolicyGenius makes choosing the right policy for your family easy and quick.
As the country's leading online insurance marketplace, PolicyGenius gives you peace of mind knowing that if something were to happen to you, Your family could cover their expenses while getting back on their feet.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage.
Some options are 100% online and let you avoid unnecessary medical exams.
PolicyGenius has licensed, award-winning agents and technology that makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find the lowest price.
Their team of licensed experts is on hand to help you through the process, even if you already have a life insurance policy through work.
May not be enough to protect your family and their needs, and it may not follow you if you leave your job.
PolicyGenius works for you, not the insurance companies.
That means they don't have the incentive to recommend one insurer over another.
Don't put off life insurance any longer.
Make it easy with PolicyGenius.
Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.
Beneath the coordinated and manufactured hype campaign promoting Kamala Harris, it's not hard to detect an air of desperation.
We're constantly being told that Harris is a transformative candidate who will save democracy as we know it, but she's dodged pretty much every opportunity to answer serious questions since stealing the nomination.
The whole thing violates a basic rule of persuasion, which is that you're supposed to show, not tell.
Everything's more convincing when you see it instead of hearing about it.
But Harris isn't capable of making the case for her own candidacy.
She can't show us why she'd be a good president.
The best she can do is, you know, cackle and repeat her stump speech.
So it falls on professional commentators to articulate why it makes sense to vote for her.
The problem that these commentators have is that if they go into any kind of detail about the policies Harris has said she supports, then She's going to lose the election, abolishing ICE, guaranteeing everyone a federal job, outlawing private health insurance, banning fracking.
I mean, these are all proposals that make it basically impossible to win a national race.
That's why she's backpedaled on every single one of those proposals.
She has no real values.
Everything's malleable at a moment's notice.
So, how exactly do you pitch a candidate like that?
Well, the other day in the New York Times, columnist David French came up with a solution.
He's a columnist who calls himself conservative, considers himself conservative, and yet he wrote a piece entitled, to save conservatism from itself, I am voting for Harris.
And it's worth talking about this in some detail because it's going to be a familiar
refrain from the left in the next three months.
And we're already seeing a lot of other media reports purporting to tell us about Republicans
and conservatives who are voting for Kamala Harris.
David French has decided to lead that charge to stand up in the front of the parade.
The idea is that electing Kamala Harris will end Donald Trump's political career and allow
the Republican Party in four years to get back to what French calls Reaganite conservatism.
In other words, don't worry about what Harris believes or doesn't believe.
Vote strategically to take down Donald Trump so that in four years the party of Ronald Reagan will return.
Now, this is an argument that's tailor-made to appeal to conservatives with some memory of Reagan and a very poor understanding of Kamala Harris.
But everyone else understands the problem with it.
Saving conservatism by voting for Kamala Harris is like saving someone from drowning by chaining a millstone around their neck.
A Kamala Harris administration would guarantee that the future of American conservatism would look a lot like conservatism quote-unquote in Canada or the UK.
I mean, we're already trending in that direction.
An administration that censors dissent, criminalizes firearm ownership, stops enforcing the law, would complete our transformation into a one-party left-liberal government if we aren't already that.
But people like David French want that transformation to happen as quickly as possible, and French hopes to convince conservatives to buy into this change by arguing that their preferred political ideology has already been replaced by the so-called MAGA movement, so you might as well just give up and vote for the Democrat.
Since the day Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015, the MAGA movement has been engaged in a long-running, slow-rolling ideological and characterological transformation of the Republican Party.
At each step, it has pushed Republicans further and further away from Reaganite conservatism, it's divorced Republican voters from any major consideration of character and leadership, and all the while has labeled people who resisted the change as traitors.
What allegiance do you owe a party, a movement, or a politician when it, or they, fundamentally change their ideology and ethos?
Now, the issue here is pretty simple.
There are a lot of issues, but we can start with this, that French's underlying premise is wrong.
Trump has not fundamentally changed conservatism.
Many of his positions, immigration in particular, are more conservative than the average Republican politician, especially the average Republican politician before Trump came onto the scene.
And even in the areas where he has moderated, On abortion, gay marriage, for example.
Even in those areas, he's not any more moderate than the average Republican politician.
Now, I personally wish he was less moderate, but it's absurd to suggest that some establishment Republican like Tim Scott or whoever would have held the line better on those issues.
I mean, it's just delusional.
Now French seems to realize this because he immediately moves on to talking about how Donald Trump supposedly lies a lot.
He drops the topic of ideology and starts making familiar observations, well-worn observations about Trump's character.
Quote, let's take an assertion that should be uncontroversial, especially to a party that often envisioned itself as a home for people of faith.
Lying is wrong.
I'm not naive.
I know that politicians have had poor reputations for honesty since Athens.
But I've never seen a human being lie with the intensity and sheer volume of Donald Trump.
Even worse, Trump's lies are contagious.
The legal results speak for themselves.
A cascade of successful defamation lawsuits demonstrate the severity and pervasiveness of Republican dishonesty.
Now, what's not mentioned here or anywhere in the article or at any point by these Republicans for Harris Is the fact that Harris spent several years lying about Joe Biden's mental capacity, which is like a pretty big lie.
Okay, the President of the United States is mentally incapacitated and they lied about it.
What about that, David?
Is that a lie that matters to you?
Or the fact that Tim Walz spent 20 years lying about his service in the National Guard, you know, another big one?
I mean, I remember a time when a Republican would never dream to vote for a ticket where someone's guilty of lying about their military record, for God's sake.
What's the world coming to when a Republican, a self-professed Republican, would vote for that?
Back in Reagan's day, they never would have.
And these are actual falsehoods.
They're statements of fact, allegedly, that can be proven to be false.
Now, what French is accusing Trump of doing, though, on the other hand, is very different.
He's saying that Trump was lying by claiming that the 2020 election was rigged.
But that is not a claim that anyone has proven false or that anyone can prove false.
It's Trump's assessment of what happened to him.
And it happens to be a very well-founded assessment.
The entire system of elections in this country was changed in a matter of weeks, removing all kinds of safeguards against fraud, ultimately allowing Joe Biden to receive millions more votes than Barack Obama, we're told.
That followed years of deliberate falsehoods about Russian collusion that never took place, along with lies about very fine people quote-unquote in Charlottesville, Hunter Biden's laptop, and the information about that that was suppressed.
That's another way of rigging an election happening right out in the open.
And all of this stuff and these falsehoods were repeated many times by the Biden-Harris administration.
Add that, of course, there are millions of illegal aliens who have been shipped in this country over the past few decades.
Any reasonable person can conclude that this amounts to an unfair, or what we may call rigged, political process.
But David French doesn't care about any of that.
He only cares about Trump's response to it.
So he continues, quote, Let's take another assertion that should be relatively uncontroversial.
Political violence and threats of violence have no place in the American democratic process.
Yet threats and intimidation follow the MAGA movement like night follows day.
Only one party has nominated a man who was indicted for his role in the criminal scheme to steal an American election, a scheme that culminated in a violent political riot.
Now French then kind of hand waves away the attempted assassination of Donald Trump last month, as well as the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh and Steve Scalise.
All of those instances of political violence, according to David French, pale in comparison to Donald Trump's decision to challenge the results of the 2020 election.
And that decision, French says, led to a violent riot in which only Trump supporters were killed.
Therefore, Trump is responsible for inciting political violence.
Now, I'm not going to recount all of Trump's statements on January 6th calling for peaceful protests.
Those are very well documented.
We've all heard them, if we care to listen.
It's also well documented that the left likes to pretend that Trump never made those calls for peaceful protests, which is why the Supreme Court faulted Jack Smith's indictment for failing to mention them.
What's remarkable about French's assertion is that even if it were true, Then he could make a very similar complaint against Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
I've already talked about Tim Walz's role in delaying the National Guard response to the riots in Minneapolis, but it's actually worse than that.
A Minnesota police sergeant testified that Walz ordered the authorities to surrender the police station to the mob.
Watch.
Three Minneapolis police officers testified at the Minnesota Senate today.
The officers are all board members for the Minneapolis Police Federation.
And as Esme Murphy reports, they offered up a scathing critique of government and police leaders during the riots following George Floyd's death.
That's not what we stand for.
Her voice shaking, Minneapolis Police Sergeant Anna Hedberg says during the riots, officers were abandoned by state, city and department leaders.
To watch them go through that.
It was so heartbreaking to know that they could have died because we were not allowed to respond the way that we have been trained to respond.
During the riots, the officers were told they could not wear protective frog suits, but were still hit and injured with bottles, cement, and more.
Sergeant Hedberg blamed state, city, and department leaders for the abandonment of a third precinct.
I heard the governor say, give it up.
It wasn't directly to me.
It was through a phone call.
The governor says give up the precinct.
I mean, that's demoralizing for this whole state.
So the governor of Minneapolis whips up a mob of violent thugs.
They ransack businesses.
They set buildings on fire.
They kill people and cause tens of millions of dollars in property damage.
And then in response, the governor tells the authorities to stand down so there could be more carnage.
Meanwhile, his wife lowers the window in the governor's mansion to take in the aroma of burning tires.
And Kamala Harris gets to work bailing out the perpetrators.
It's easy to talk about violence like this in the abstract, so here's new footage of what Tim Walz oversaw in Minneapolis.
This apparently hasn't been widely broadcast until yesterday when it resurfaced on social media.
Let's look at this for a second.
[SWISH]
Okay, so...
[SWISH]
[SWISH]
It looks like a war zone.
Not even hyperbole, it looks like a war zone.
I mean, if you saw that without any context, and I asked you, what happened here?
What do you think happened here?
They would say, oh, this must be in the middle of some kind of combat zone.
And by the way, if you look at that and you honestly tell me that that is not as bad as what happened in the Capitol, then you are just I don't believe that you believe that.
You are a liar.
You're lying to my face.
If you're going to look at that and tell me.
Yeah, but that's not as bad.
A whole block set on fire.
This is just one block in one city.
We know this is happening all over the country.
Now, any competent governor who cared about his city would have done everything in his power to end that destruction, but Tim Walz enabled it.
And this is why whatever criticisms you can bring against Donald Trump for January 6th, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to protest Donald Trump by voting for the people who let that happen, who encouraged it to happen.
These are people who aren't just liars, they promoted violence that led to the deaths of innocent people all over the country.
They bailed out the radicals so they could commit more acts of violence.
And that kind of violence isn't suddenly acceptable because it happened outside of the Capitol building.
Now, at best, even if French's points were all valid, they're not.
At best, it would be an argument for not voting for Trump.
But actively voting for a far-left Democrat and doing it in the name of conservatism is an asinine position.
It is despicable, even.
Now Trump may not be pro-life enough for my taste, but the Biden administration supports abortion until the moment of birth.
They're also actively prosecuting pro-lifers.
So David French, the avid pro-lifer, is voting for the regime that is currently, right now, throwing pro-life activists in federal prison for a decade.
Nice job, David.
He's also backing a government that just proposed ethics rules and term limits for the Supreme Court, which would obviously be a major step towards ending the independent judiciary in this country for good.
What part of Reaganite conservatism is that?
Okay, what part involves kicking conservative justice off the bench because, you know, they fly historic flags outside their beach houses?
What conservative principle is that defending?
Using pretext to oust justices who don't toe the left party line is not conservative.
It's also not what Reagan did either, by the way.
It's what Reagan's enemies did in the Soviet Union.
And for that matter, what exactly is conservative about abolishing ICE and closing all illegal immigrant detention centers?
Does that conserve our borders or our national heritage?
No one can ask Kamala Harris about this because she won't sit for any real interviews at all, but it's all on tape.
Watch.
Hi, my name is Sally Hartman.
I'm a volunteer with the Center for Worker Justice.
I want to know, when you become president, would you be committing to close the immigration detention centers?
Absolutely on day one.
You simply cannot have a functioning country with someone like this, someone like Kamala
Harris in charge.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
It's impossible, by definition, to maintain our borders when you shut down all border enforcement, which is what Kamala Harris has promised to do.
And there are many more examples like this.
A Harris-Walls administration would mean that more federal resources would be allocated on the basis of race.
It would mean vastly more government spending and giveaways to preferred groups like student loan debt relief.
Which is welfare for the upper class, where they take from working class people and use it to pay off the loans of upper class people.
And none of these ideas are consistent with Reaganism, if that's what you're concerned about.
But people like David French and the other, you know, Republicans for Harris want you to think they are.
And they're now actively campaigning for a candidate who hates this country and its people and wishes to do harm to both.
Now, you know, some perspective is important.
I'm not going to claim that this election is the last election we'll ever have and we have to win or America is over.
Both sides say that about every election.
They've been saying that for as long as I've been alive.
But it is true that a Kamala victory would mean eight years of this current regime, very likely 12 years.
This country has suffered greatly from just four years.
Another decade of this would be disastrous.
So it comes down to this.
It's very simple.
Every American who considers himself conservative or Christian has a moral obligation to vote against Kamala Harris.
This is a bad person.
And she is part of a regime, more importantly, that has very bad, very evil designs for this country.
She wants to kill babies.
Okay, up to the moment of birth.
That's what these people believe in.
Fully born infants.
She wants to destroy our national sovereignty.
She doesn't believe that we have a right to national sovereignty.
She wants to indoctrinate our children into an ideology of self-harm and confusion.
These are the people who want to release violent criminals onto the streets.
You know, to continue to destroy our communities.
And in every other sense, they are actively working against everything we claim to stand for.
So whatever you think of Trump, I mean, even if you have the most unflattering view of him that a reasonable person could possibly have, he is not part of that agenda.
And if you are voting for that agenda, you are actively participating in the evil.
You are supporting it.
You are helping it to gain and retain power.
And that you're doing all of that to get back at Donald Trump because you don't like him?
At the expense of our country?
That just makes you a fool, at best.
At best.
This is not about being loyal to Donald Trump or any other politician.
Politicians don't deserve our loyalty.
I don't care about that.
This is about loving your country.
Loving your country enough and caring enough about your children and their future to put your feelings about Donald Trump to the side and cast a vote against this regime that has already done incredible harm to this country.
And we'll do a lot more if we don't stop it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
When you're running a business, time is money.
And that's why I'm so excited to introduce you to Ramp.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.
With RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions.
You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting.
RAMP's accounting software automatically collapses receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you'll never have to chase down a receipt again and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports.
The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster.
RAMP is so easy to use.
Gets started in less than 15 minutes whether you have five employees or 5,000.
And now get $250 when you join RAMP.
Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh.
R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
That's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Members FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
The media continues its never-ending quest to embarrass and humiliate JD Vance for the crime of being selected as a VP candidate.
And I wanted to talk for a moment about this because They're just stepping on one rake after another in their attempt to embarrass him.
And this is the most egregious example I've seen.
So here's the latest from HuffPost.
Republican vice presidential candidate and Ohio Senator J.D.
Vance is getting dragged for hypocrisy after a photo from his law school days surfaced on social media appearing to show him in a blonde wig and a dress.
The photo first came to light via ex-user Matt Bernstein, who said the pic dates back to Vance's days at Yale Law School in 2012.
A short time later, Yale assistant professor Travis Whitfield said he was the source of the photo that Bernstein had posted, but credited another classmate for taking it.
Whitfield told the Daily Beast, it's from a group chat of Vance's fellow classmates and it's from a friend of a friend, I believe it was grabbed from Facebook, and was taken at a Halloween party.
The photo quickly went viral with some social media users giving Vance the drag name Sofa Loren, which is a reference to the made-up couch meme.
And then there was another photo that also came out, basically the same photo of him dressed in drag.
Here's the photo, by the way.
Let's just put that up on the screen.
So there it is.
And Vance is apparently not denied that this was him.
It looks like him, it's not being denied, so I think we pretty much know that it is.
My only question about this, and it is a sincere question, it really is, is whether these people are as dumb as they present themselves to be, or if they're pretending.
You know, it's maybe an impossible choice between their stupidity and their dishonesty.
Which one wins out?
Who knows?
What I do know is that you have got to be a giant, slobbering moron to not understand the distinction here.
I mean, to accuse JD Vance of hypocrisy for wearing drag at a Halloween party in college And why is he a hypocrite?
Because he doesn't think that we should parade drag queens around children.
And he thinks that men are men and women are women, and if a man dresses up like a woman, he's not actually a woman.
Those are his two positions, broadly speaking, that lead to him being a hypocrite because 12 or 13 years ago at a college party he wore drag.
So, again, assuming those photos are actually J.D.
Vance and Seems like a safe assumption.
So this was at a Halloween party in college.
I mean, he's holding a beer pong ball in the picture.
You can see.
And what does that tell us?
Okay, it tells us that he dressed like this as a joke.
It's a joke.
The whole point is that it looks ridiculous.
Okay, so if you're on the left and you saw that Photo of J.D.
Vance.
Oh, we got him now.
He's a hypocrite.
Again, I'm going to do you the favor of taking you at your word, which would mean that you're just a total moron, and so I'm going to try to slow down and I'll speak as slowly and clearly as I possibly can.
If you really don't understand the distinction, let me try to explain it.
So, and this was pretty common back in the old days at frat parties, Halloween parties, have guys dressed up like that.
Why were they doing that?
Were they expressing their true self?
Was this something that they walked in dressed like that and everyone applauded and celebrated?
Oh, it's so beautiful.
He is himself, herself.
Sorry.
No.
What did people do?
They laughed.
Because you're supposed to laugh.
You're supposed to look at that and laugh.
That was the point.
It was a joke.
The punchline is that it is absurd for a man to dress like a woman.
Why would a person at a college party do something intentionally absurd?
I don't know.
Welcome to college parties.
That's because it's funny.
It's a Halloween costume.
So, especially as a man, and I may have got to back it up a little bit more and explain to you how Halloween costumes work, right?
Is that if you're a man and you're dressed in a Halloween costume, and I don't wear Halloween costumes myself as an adult, but I understand the basic concept at least more than you people apparently do.
If you're on the left, I mean.
So, if you're a man dressed in a Halloween costume, there are really two possible reactions you're hoping to get.
And one is that you want people to laugh, because you're trying to be funny.
The only other possibility is that it's supposed to be scary.
The only two reasons any man really wears a Halloween costume is it's funny or it's scary.
And so, why was he dressed like that?
I mean, I guess it could be a little column A, a little column B here.
Either we're supposed to laugh, hey look, it's a man dressed like a woman, that's hilarious.
Or, hey look, it's a man dressed like a woman, that's creepy as hell.
Maybe it's supposed to be kind of creepy and funny.
Either way, this is not the same thing as a self-proclaimed trans woman, quote unquote, or a drag queen today.
In both of those cases, those are males presenting themselves as females in a context That we are supposed to take seriously.
You're not supposed to look at a trans woman, quote unquote, or a drag queen and laugh, are you?
In fact, if you do that, right, you on the left, you would accuse us of unspeakable bigotry, right?
If a trans-identified male walked into the room, dressed like a woman, and I pointed at him and said, that's hilarious, good one.
Wow, that's great.
That's hysterical, look at him, look at him, he looks like a clown.
What a hilarious costume.
If I reacted that way, you would break, you would cry.
Right?
The trans-identified male would cry, you would cry, you'd want me brought up on hate crime charges.
And why is that?
Because for you, cross-dressing is a sacred act.
It is an expression of some deep inner truth about a person.
So, this is not only different from the context of the J.D.
Vance photo, but in fact it's exactly the opposite.
It's exactly the opposite thing.
One is treating cross-dressing as a deep, profound truth.
The other, you're treating it as a punchline.
So the claim here, unintelligibly, is that Vance is now a hypocrite for criticizing the leftist worship of cross-dressing because Vance himself once mocked cross-dressing?
His history of making jokes out of it means that he can't criticize those who take it seriously?
I mean, what?
What?
Now the left undermines its own case by They themselves now are drawing a parallel between Vance dressing like that in 2012 and, say, Rachel Levine dressing like that today.
Like, if you're on the left, again, I'm trying to slow it down and explain this to you, that's the kind of analogy and parallel that you're supposed to reject.
Like, you're, that's, I'm the one who's supposed to compare those two things.
You're supposed to say, no, it's not the same, it's a totally different thing.
That's what you're supposed to say.
Like, you people are so stupid and confused that I need to explain to you what your own positions are supposed to be so we can have any kind of argument here.
You destroy your own case by making this connection.
So no, you idiots, you drooling dimwits.
You're supposed to be condemning Vance for being insensitive and bigoted by wearing the wig and the dress.
That's your position.
You're supposed to look at that and say something like, oh look, Vance has always been a transphobe.
Like, that would be consistent.
That would make some kind of sense.
But if you accuse him of hypocrisy for dressing like that, which is what you absolute duncecaps have done, you are yourselves claiming that wearing a dress as a Halloween costume at a frat party while you play beer pong is the same as Rachel Levine wearing a dress today.
Okay, you've given up on your whole gender ideology agenda just to dunk on Vance.
I mean, it's incredible.
What's next?
Are you going to tell us that Mrs. Doubtfire is a great film because of its trans representation?
A film that happened again at a time when if a guy was dressed like that, you're supposed to laugh.
It's a joke.
It's only in the last, like, 15 and a half seconds that we've decided that it's not funny anymore, it's beautiful.
And, you know, funny and beautiful really are not the same.
It's pretty rare that something is both funny and beautiful at the same time.
Alright, here's something else I wanted to talk about.
Kamala Harris had a rally over the weekend in Detroit, and there were a lot of people there.
People, in fact, and I think we have some of the pictures here.
Let's put up a few of the pictures.
So, all right, so there she is.
There's the crowd, big crowd, we must admit.
They have the crowd staged when the plane pulled up.
Now, the rights, conservatives are not particularly happy about these crowd sizes that Kamala Harris is attracting, understandably so.
And I'm on the right, and I'm not happy about it.
I mean, I'll admit that.
I'd prefer if that wasn't happening.
It's not my favorite thing that's happening in the world today, I'm willing to admit.
But the problem is that some on the right, to include, unfortunately, Trump himself, have resorted to quite desperate lengths to dismiss the crowd sizes.
And this, you know, anytime I get into a conversation like this, I always have people getting mad at me.
Even if they agree, they're like, yeah, okay, you're right, but don't say this because it's critical and we're in, this is an election.
That's not what, I'm not counter signaling, okay, I'm, uh, I want to win.
I don't know.
I keep saying this.
I want to actually win.
And so if I see conservatives adopting a tactic that is bad and doesn't work, Then now's the time for me to say it.
I don't know when else am I going to say it.
I'm not going to wait until it's too late and then say it.
So I don't know what you want me to do.
And unfortunately, you know, there have been several examples recently of Republicans, sometimes including Trump and sometimes not, using strategies and tactics that I just think are not at all effective.
I just think they're bad tactics.
And so what's happening here is that over the weekend a conspiracy theory popped up claiming that the crowd images are AI, that in fact nobody was at this rally, that there were zero people there, and all the images were fake.
Trump claimed this himself, in fact, he tweeted this, or didn't tweet it, this is on Truth Social, but now he's back on Twitter, which is a good thing, by the way.
So that's one, that's a mark in, strategically, that's a mark in his favor, that's a good thing that's being done.
This not so much.
So he put this out on Truth Social.
Has anyone noticed that Kamala cheated at the airport?
There was nobody at the plane and she AI'd it and showed a massive crowd of so-called followers, but they didn't exist.
She was turned in by a maintenance worker at the airport when he noticed the fake crowd picture, but there was nobody there.
Later confirmed by the reflection of the mirror-like finish on the vice presidential plane.
She's a cheater.
She had nobody waiting.
The crowd looked like 10,000 people.
Okay.
I mean, you know, it's not true.
with her fake crowds at her speeches.
This is the way the Democrats win elections by cheating.
And they're even worse at the ballot box.
She should be disqualified because the creation of a fake image is election interference.
Anyone who does that will cheat at anything.
Okay.
I mean, you know, it's not true.
There are dozens of different videos and photos from local sources, national news,
individual rally attendees, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, showing these crowds.
There was one image that made the rounds of an AI crowd.
There was an image making the rounds of a Kamala Harris crowd where it was clearly AI.
But that image came from a parody account on Twitter.
They were making a joke.
And I think that's what started this whole thing.
But it's a satire account.
It's not real.
It's like you might as well be basing your news on a Babylon Bee headline or something.
And, you know, at this point you have to be alleging a vast and coordinated conspiracy in order to explain the crowd sizes.
And you're also setting a precedent where no images or videos mean anything anymore.
And so then, what, the next big Trump rally?
Well, the other side could easily look at that and say, yeah, no, it's fake.
No, but we have 10 different sources here with footage of the rally.
Yeah, it's all fake.
It's all fake.
I wasn't there, so it's fake.
Didn't happen.
I mean, that's where we are.
It just becomes like there's no net benefit at the end.
And here's the frustrating thing to me.
It's so unnecessary.
Like, we don't... I mean, it's not true.
That's probably the most important thing.
Second, let's focus on the second point, which is that tactically, it is not smart to make this claim, and it's not necessary.
When you start claiming that the crowds are fake, you look desperate and scared.
That's what you look like to everybody.
Everyone who is not already a diehard on your side.
Now, the diehards that are on your side, They might love it, it might make them feel good, but that's pure echo chamber stuff.
It's just about making yourself feel good.
It's like political masturbation, and it's just as unseemly.
And you don't need it to explain why Kamala Harris is drawing big crowds.
It's actually, it's not confusing.
It's not a mystery.
So when you see the big crowd for Kamala Harris, you don't need to go, wow, this is not, this can't be positive, this can't be happening.
It must be AI, it must be a conspiracy.
No, she's drawing big crowds because she has the entire media and Hollywood machine generating hype for her.
That's why.
Okay?
It's that simple.
Now, when she ran in 2020 and got less than 1% of the vote and nobody cared, why did that happen?
Well, she didn't have the hype machine at that point.
In fact, the media in Hollywood didn't like her that much back then.
Because they preferred other Democrat candidates, and so they weren't hyping her up.
And now they are, and so it's different.
This is not mysterious.
Now, I don't think we should spend a lot of time talking about Kamala's crowd sizes at all.
I don't think we should spend a lot of time trying to explain them.
Because to focus on it at all is also not tactically smart.
And, you know, if you focus on too much, you still look like desperate and like you're trying to explain it away.
But if it comes up, I mean, this is the actual truth.
That this is why they're there.
And the media could do this with anyone.
Okay, they could pull any random person off the street and turn them into a star.
Anyone.
If they just plucked you off the street walking by one day and said, hey, Bob Smith, You're a star now.
You're the biggest thing ever.
You're a person of the year.
We're going to put you on Time Magazine.
If they did that, they could make you into a major star.
Just like that.
Less than 24 hours.
Now, it'll be fleeting.
Probably.
It's not going to last forever.
So the media can't maintain that artificial stardom indefinitely, but they can make you a star for a season.
It's going to burn hot and burn fast and burn out, but they can do it.
Unless, now eventually you have to get by on your own star power.
So they can kind of give you this totally artificial boost, and if you happen to be also a person of charisma and talent and all of that, then maybe you can maintain it yourself.
But if you don't have any of that, any of that star power, then the balloon will inflate.
And this is the situation Harris is in.
The advantage she has is that she only needs to coast for a couple of months.
She doesn't have any star power.
She doesn't have any charisma.
She doesn't have any real talent.
There's nothing interesting or exciting about her as a person.
And that will become evident to all of the sheep that are getting caught up in the hype right now.
But Harris knows, and the Harris campaign knows, that they just need to keep this balloon inflated for a couple of months.
That's it.
Once she's in office, yeah, the novelty will wear off quickly.
All the star power.
If she actually ends up in office, she runs for re-election in 2028, it's not going to be the same rally crowd sizes.
Because by that point, you know, it'll be this weird, you know, There's a phase right now where Kamala Harris is being treated like a star will be distant ancient history.
But they're not worried about that because at that point she'll be running as an incumbent.
She'll have those advantages.
I mean, she's an incumbent now, but she's not the incumbent president.
So the media Hollywood machine is just betting that they can keep the balloon afloat for for that long, at least just a couple of months.
And maybe they can.
And once again, this is not mysterious.
The media Hollywood machine, this is what they do.
This is what they're good at.
It's the only thing they're good at.
And they can do it with anyone.
I mean, somebody compared it.
To the hock to a girl, okay?
And that's a phenomenon that I never talked about on the show because I, up to this point, have refused to acknowledge that someone can be made famous just for making a crude sexual reference in a 10-second internet video.
Like, I just could not bring myself to acknowledge that we are at that point culturally where that is enough.
Just that.
I didn't want to acknowledge it because it's annoying, but it happens to be true.
The Hawk Tua girl made a crude sexual reference in a 10-second video, and next thing you know, she's like a celebrity.
She's everywhere.
I saw her last week, I think it was.
She was being interviewed by Bill Maher.
What?
Why?
Interviewed about what?
Are you gonna spend an hour talking about that video?
Like, what is there to say about it?
Does she have any other interesting things to say about anything?
I watched, just because I wanted to know, does this person also happen to be incredibly interesting on top of it?
And I listened for five minutes to a clip.
No, nothing to say.
Absolutely nothing to say.
But that doesn't matter right now.
They decided to make her into a star.
It's not going to last.
A year from now, the Hoctua Girl isn't going to be a legitimate celebrity with sustained fame.
At a certain point, as I said, you do have to stand on your own two feet.
You have to be able to do something.
You have to be able to create something.
So, can the Hoctua Girl sing?
Can she act?
Does she have anything interesting to say?
Could she host a talk show or something?
If she does have those abilities, then she may be able to take this very weird fleeting 15 minutes that's lasted longer than 15 minutes, but won't last forever, and she may be able to parlay it into something, but she has to have that talent.
If she doesn't, she doesn't seem to, then it'll just go away.
You can't live forever on a gimmick, especially a gimmick as utterly vacuous and lacking in substance as this.
But, the point is, this girl got like a month.
Maybe more.
Out of this.
Out of, like, absolutely nothing.
So, can Kamala Harris, the Hoctua girl of presidential candidates, can she get three months?
I mean, if Hoctua can get a month of cultural relevance and weirdly, totally misplaced stardom that's based in nothing, if she can get a month out of it, And the media's not even trying that hard to make her into a star.
Can they get Harris three months?
That's the big question.
We'll see.
And the point is that that is why she's getting the crowds.
She's getting the crowds for the same reason that the hock to a girl got on Bill Maher.
It's the same thing.
I would love to say that, no, she wasn't really on the Bill Maher Show.
Like, that was A.I.
I'd love to say that was- I'd love to tell myself that when I see Hock to a girl doing the interview circuit on major shows, it must be A.I.
Like, it can't be real.
We're not that stupid of a society, are we?
We are.
I hate to tell you.
We are.
And it's real.
So, same thing with Harris.
They have willed her stardom into existence.
And now Trump, on the other hand, draws the crowds in spite of the media and the Hollywood machine.
They are trying to do the opposite with him.
They want to take someone who already has a lot of star power on his own and make it so he's not a star.
And they've tried very hard for many years to do it, and he's only grown more powerful because of it.
So they have willed Kamala's star into existence.
They've tried to will Trump's star out of existence, and they've failed.
And so that should really be the response.
Like, that is how you respond to this.
Saying like, okay, yeah, so she can get the crowds when she's got the entire media mechanism, everybody working together, Hollywood media, everyone working together to turn her into this.
She can get crowds.
Wow, literally anyone could do that.
Anyone.
If you have that level of promotion, anyone can get a crowd.
Can you do it when that whole industry is against you?
Almost nobody could.
But Trump did.
The white guys who brought you What Is A Woman are back with our next big question for America.
Am I racist?
Coming to theaters September 13th.
I went deep undercover as a certified DEI expert.
Let me tell you, it's even more absurd than you'd imagine.
You'll be shocked at how far these race hustlers go.
How much further I had to go then to expose it all.
But here's the point and the most important part.
We need your help to get this movie into as many theaters across the country as possible.
Pre-sale tickets are available in two days this Thursday, and the more tickets we sell, the more theaters that will show it.
That's the way it works.
We're fighting the left with every ticket purchase, and when we fight, we win.
Remember, the only way to take DEI seriously is to seriously laugh at it.
Amiracist pre-sale starts Thursday at Amiracist.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Media reports often call them uncontacted, which isn't quite true.
They've been contacted at various points in the past centuries, just not with positive results for the most part.
I've even heard them referred to as the last uncontacted tribe on Earth, which is doubly false.
There are uncontacted tribes, actually, actually uncontacted, and they mostly all live in the Amazon jungle some 9,000 miles away from North Sentinel Island.
But, contacted or not, the Sentinelese are a very primitive tribe.
They are human relics of the Stone Age, running around mostly naked, using arrows and spears, living in lean-to mud huts.
They are surviving as hunter-gatherers.
Nobody knows exactly how many of them still survive on the island.
Some reports say maybe hundreds, others estimate that it could be dozens at most.
Many modern Americans became aware of these people for the first time in 2018, when an American missionary named John Allen Chow tried to visit the island to tell the tribe about Jesus, as missionaries do.
He walked up on the beach singing hymns, and he was, of course, unarmed.
He had no violent or aggressive intentions at all.
And the Sentinelese responded by shooting Chau full of arrows.
He died on the beach.
Now, it's not clear what happened to the missionary's body after he was murdered.
The Sentinelese have a history of not exactly treating their victims with respect.
Years earlier, in 2006, two fishermen accidentally washed up on shore.
They did not intend to invade the Sentinelese territory, but they did, accidentally.
And the fact that it was unintentional did not save them.
They were hacked to death with axes, and their bodies were put on bamboo stakes and displayed like scarecrows facing out to sea.
This has been the Sentinelese way of dealing with outsiders for centuries.
There's a violent history of these kinds of encounters extending many hundreds of years.
Interspersed throughout this time, there have been more peaceful meetings between the modern world and the Stone Age tribe, but for the most part, it has been a history of brutal violence.
In the 70s, a documentary crew was met with a barrage of arrows, even after offering gifts to show that they had friendly intentions.
They were still shot at.
One member of the film crew was hit in the leg with an arrow.
In the 80s, a freight ship ran aground on the island during a storm.
The crew of 31 nearly met a very grisly end when the Sentinelese appeared on the beach, waving their spears and arrows around.
The tribesmen started making canoes to paddle out to the ship and attack, but the crew was eventually rescued before the massacre could begin.
And there are many stories like this in the history of the island, and many more that were never recorded because nobody survived to record it.
In summary, the Sentinelese have claimed the right for themselves to massacre anyone who
happens upon their shores, no matter their intentions, no matter why they're there, no
matter if they're armed or unarmed, no matter who they are or what they want, they can all
be killed.
And I was thinking about this point a few days ago when I saw a viral tweet from a Twitter
user who made an interesting point about the Sentinelese.
He posted, quote, One of the funniest things about modern leftism is that it simultaneously says that we must respectfully preserve North Sentinel Island and its culture in a prehistoric bubble, and that if they magically showed up here tomorrow, they'd be Americans just like me.
Now that is, that's a funny thing, and it's a good point.
The liberal view of immigration says that a man who just emerged from a Stone Age time capsule and set foot on American soil ten seconds ago is every bit as American, in every sense of the word, as a man who's lived here his whole life, and whose family has lived here since the Revolutionary War.
There is no difference between those Americans, we are told.
The only thing that makes a person an American is that they happen to be standing on the same plot of land.
But, as I was thinking about it, I think that the Sentinelese present an even more interesting challenge to liberal ideas about immigration.
So consider this.
Every liberal I've ever heard talk about the Sentinelese, or similarly hostile primitive tribes, will quickly and definitively say that these tribes are well within their moral rights to murder all intruders indiscriminately.
And this is not just anecdotal.
Go back and read any of the commentary about the American missionary in 2018 that was killed.
And there was quite a lot of commentary about it.
And nearly universally, the commentary arrived at this verdict.
That Chau deserved to be killed for invading their territory.
Yes, he was unarmed.
Yes, he was just trying to talk to them.
No, he didn't intend to harm them.
He didn't intend to move in with them.
He wasn't trying to claim citizenship among them.
But he still deserved to die.
He didn't belong there.
That's their land.
It's not his.
And so he got killed.
It was his fault.
And that was the conclusion that almost everyone came to.
This is very strange, though, because all of those same people would also say, just as definitively and with just as much confidence, That our country would be guilty of a heinous sin if it were to kill all illegal intruders on sight.
Indeed, most of the Western defenders of Sentinelese autonomy would even say that we are committing an act of evil by guarding our borders at all.
Certainly, if we caught an illegal at the border and stabbed him to death, and then displayed his body on a stake as a warning to future trespassers, nobody would defend it.
All would agree that it is a horrific human rights violation.
So, how can the Sentinelese be justified in using literally any method, no matter how brutal, to defend its border, But we aren't justified in using any violent methods, or perhaps even any non-violent methods, to defend ours.
How can a person hold these two thoughts in the same head simultaneously?
Now, I've...
I've posed this question on social media and not gotten a coherent answer from anyone on the left.
A few have tried to dodge it by saying that, well, our laws forbid us from killing illegal immigrants, but their laws don't forbid them from doing the same.
You know, so it's about the law.
But this is a weak sidestep of the issue.
I'm talking about what is moral, not just what is legal.
It's a question of morality first, not legality.
And besides, America could change its law to permit the butchering of intruders.
Would liberals be okay with it then?
If we just change the law, is that okay?
Of course not.
So you can't hide behind the law.
What then is the answer?
The only intelligible way to defend the Sentinelese and their right to axe stranded fishermen to death, while denying America the right to kill illegal intruders under any circumstance at all, or even to defend its border using force, the only way to really do that is to say that the Sentinelese are in some way inferior.
That they lack not only technological advancement, but moral and intellectual advancement.
They are not as empathetic.
Not as morally sophisticated as the Western world, and therefore we can't hold them to the same standards.
But the problem is that liberals cannot say that, and will not say it, because their ideology also requires them to believe in the universal equality of all people and all cultures.
They have to also say that we're not better than the Sentinelese running around in loincloths or completely naked, you know, throwing, chucking spears at people that wash up on shore.
They have to say that our cultures are totally equal.
We're not better at all.
We're not smarter.
We're not anything.
We're not morally superior in any way.
And if anything, we're actually worse than them.
That's what liberals have to say.
It's what they will say.
So then we're back to the same problem.
How is it that they are morally permitted to commit these acts of violence against intruders, but we're not morally permitted to do anything approaching that?
Now they might try another duck and dodge maneuver, hiding behind cultural relativism.
Perhaps they'll say that, well, murdering intruders is right for the Sentinelese, in their culture, because they say it is.
But it's not right in ours, because we say it isn't.
But that doesn't work either, because if our culture suddenly decided that killing illegal immigrants was okay, well, these liberals would still say that it's not okay.
So, of course, nobody really believes that whatever our culture does is automatically okay because it's what our culture does.
Like, that's the kind of reasoning they only apply to cultures like the Sentinelese, not to predominantly white Western cultures.
So, they will take a culturally relativistic view of these cultures, but for our culture, they take an objective view.
They say, like, no matter what our laws are or what we say is okay, here's what's okay, here's what's right, and that's it.
Which brings us back to the same question.
Like, why?
How do you reconcile this?
Now for me personally, this is not a difficult quandary.
What I would say is that Sentinelese society is indeed inferior in many ways.
These are primitive people who haven't yet invented the wheel, even while the developed world has robots rolling around on Mars.
So their culture is quite backwards and barbaric.
I think we can say that after you, you know, hack people to death and display their bodies like scarecrows.
Like, what are you going to call that aside from barbaric?
Even so, I would say, that they have the moral right to use force to defend their borders, their homeland, and their cultural identity.
And what I would say is that they have that moral right because all nations and all people have that right.
Their moral right of self-defense and sovereignty and national defense is not any greater or any smaller Than anyone else's, including our own.
Now, does that mean that we would be morally justified in indiscriminately slaughtering anyone who happens to wander even accidentally near our border?
Should we be killing illegal immigrants and hanging their bodies up as trophies like these tribal people do?
Of course not.
Because that is evil and barbaric.
It is wrong to behave in evil and barbaric ways.
We're civilized people.
We're not going to do that.
But it's wrong when the Sentinelese do it too.
Look, I'm willing to take the apparently controversial position that the Sentinelese did a bad thing when they shot an unarmed peaceful missionary full of arrows.
That was an evil act.
And in earlier times, you know, going back maybe centuries, when European explorers were still, you know, exploring and happening upon places like this, and I think when maybe we were a little bit of a tougher stock, We probably would have responded to that aggression against that missionary by raiding the island and avenging the blood of our murdered countrymen.
Now, I'm not advocating for that, but he was murdered, and murder is bad no matter who does it.
That's my point.
Still, the basic principle of using force, just force, right?
Force within reason, in a civilized way, to defend your border and your homeland is completely valid.
That's the position that I would take.
And there's another thing we can learn from the Sentinelese.
When you set the precedent that you're willing to use force to defend your borders, you'll quickly find that force becomes less and less necessary.
Because if potential intruders know that they might get that response, they are a lot less likely to intrude.
So, I would say that the Sentinelese go rather overboard in the way that they defend their borders.
And they can be quite savage in the way that they do it, but the basic idea behind it is a good and moral one.
And we could adopt the idea in a more civilized, more moral, and more orderly way if we wanted to.
So, that's my answer.
But, you know, liberals cannot give that answer.
They can't give that answer that I just gave.
They can't give any coherent answer because their actual answer is that their views on immigration enforcement are arbitrary and half-baked and, most importantly, not grounded in any real love for their own country.
In fact, they hate their country.
In fact, they have more love, in the abstract anyway, for North Sentinel Island Then they do for their own country.
In fact, they would probably even tell you if you asked them that it is more important to them to preserve the sovereignty of North Sentinel Island for, you know, 57 primitive tribesmen running around naked with spears.
It's more important to preserve their sovereignty than the sovereignty of their own country where they live and their families live.
They are morally confused people.
With clouded minds and treacherous, unpatriotic hearts.
That's the real answer.
And it's why they are today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
[theme music]
Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
If I'm gonna sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certification.
And what you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
This is more for you and less for you.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
You want to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument?
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently.
Yeah.
This country is a piece of s***.
White.
Folks.
White.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
What's a black person right here?
Does he not exist?
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
