Ep. 1423 - Apple Makes It Clear: White Men Need Not Apply
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Apple has a new program for budding entrepreneurs. There's just one stipulation: white men (and Asians) need not apply. Also, Kamala's refusal to take questions from the media is now so extreme that even Jim Acosta is disturbed by it. And could Elon Musk and JK Rowling face time in a French prison for "cyber-bullying?" Plus, Jeffrey Marsh, the creepiest person on TikTok, will be a featured guest at the DNC.
Ep.1423
- - -
DailyWire+:
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | Get tickets NOW: https://www.amiracist.com
Get 35% off an Annual Membership NOW with code: BACKSTAGE: https://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit. Qualifying purchases will get an exclusive GOLDEN Truth Bomb.
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
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
Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
I'm gonna sort this out.
I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certifications.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
This is more for you than this for you.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
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...
White.
Folks.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around?
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.
Never be too careful.
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Apple has a new program for budding entrepreneurs.
There's just one stipulation, white men and Asians need not apply.
Also, Kamala's refusal to take questions from the media is now so extreme that even Jim Acosta is disturbed by it.
And could Elon Musk and J.K.
Rowling face time in a French prison for cyberbullying?
Plus, Jeffrey Marsh, the creepiest person on TikTok, will be a featured guest of the DNC.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Anybody with a basic understanding of economics can see that the economy is in bad shape right now.
I'm not saying the sky is falling, but would you jump out of a plane without a parachute?
No?
Well, consider this your economic parachute warning.
I've been telling you for years to diversify your portfolio with precious metals.
If you haven't yet, now's the time.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert your IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA.
It's a smart way to protect your hard-earned savings from the impending economic disaster.
But hey, if protecting your financial future isn't motivation enough, how about this?
Backed by popular demand, now through the end of the month, you can get your very own 24-karat gold-plated truth bomb on qualifying purchases.
It's a little reminder of the truth bombs we here at The Daily Wire deliver every day, and the smart decision you made to invest in gold.
Here's what you need to do.
Text WALSH to 989898.
You'll get a free info kit and learn how you can own gold in a tax-sheltered account.
Let's all put our financial parachutes on before the economy takes a nosedive.
Don't wait for the crash to hit.
Text WALSH to 989898 now and claim your eligibility.
Qualifying purchases made before August 31st can get a Golden Truth Bomb to serve as a reminder of the great decision you made to protect your savings with gold.
That's WALSH to 989898.
Before we get into the opening monologue today, I want to begin with some very big news.
Tickets for my new film, Am I Racist, are on sale right now.
So stop what you're doing, pause the show, go buy tickets, and then come back and we can continue.
Am I Racist is the follow-up to my 2022 film, What is a Woman?
Two years ago, we explored the insanity of gender ideology.
This time around, we're diving deep into the world of anti-racism and DEI.
So it's a different topic, a different film, a very different approach in many ways.
Rather than simply ask questions, this time around I became a DEI grifter myself in order to expose the DEI grifters.
And it's a simple premise, really.
I began this journey By asking questions.
And this time around, I simply believed whatever answer they gave me.
And I tried to put their ideas into action.
Try to put them into practice.
And that's what so much of the film is.
The film is heavily satirical, very funny.
At times, I'll warn you, very dark.
And if the film is a success at the box office, it will send a profound message, not just to Hollywood and the entertainment world, but to the DEI industry and all the race hustlers who we made this film to expose in the first place.
But, of course, its success depends entirely on you.
We need your support.
And the best way to support our movie and the work we're doing is to go to miracist.com right now and pre-order tickets.
Listen, I know that pre-ordering movie tickets Probably seems unusual.
I've never pre-ordered a movie ticket in my life, personally, I'll admit.
But it's extremely important in this case.
Pre-sales go a long way to determining the ultimate success of the film.
They even determine how many theaters will show it in the first place, and lots of other things.
Go to MIRacist.com right now, order your tickets, and get ready because you're in for a wild ride with this film.
Again, the website, MIRacist.com.
And one more thing, stay tuned because a little bit later today, I'll be releasing an exclusive clip of the film.
If you've seen the trailer, you know that I'm in costume during the movie, but I don't start the movie in costume.
In the clip, you'll see exactly what happens early on that forces me to go undercover in the form of putting on a man bun.
So, that's what's happening.
That's the most important thing happening today.
And it's a pretty easy transition from Am I Racist to the lead story for today.
About a year ago, Bloomberg published a report on their website that was pretty stunning, even given everything we know about rampant DEI in workplaces all over the country.
Here's the headline, which I talked about on this show at the time, quote, Corporate America promised to hire a lot more people of color, it actually did.
The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs, 94% went to people of color.
Now after that report ran, a lot of people dug a little deeper into the data.
One of them was the Daily Wire's Luke Rosiak, who found that Bloomberg had made some significant math errors.
For their part, Bloomberg stood by the story, still available on their website.
What was lost in the discussion about the numbers is that whether the data were precisely accurate or not, the biggest companies in the country clearly wanted to send the message that they were not hiring white people anymore.
Bloomberg admitted that the point of its article was to, quote, hold companies accountable to diversity pledges.
So, these massive S&P companies had publicly pledged to hire fewer white people, probably coordinated with Bloomberg on the article, and then when the article came out, these corporations didn't repudiate any of it in any way.
They didn't claim that there had been some mistake when Bloomberg reported that only 6% of their new jobs went to white people, which really tells you something.
In retrospect, it was a very big tell.
It was basically an admission by these corporations that white people are systematically disfavored in the application process.
They're either being skipped entirely, or at the very least, corporations strongly want to create the impression that they're being skipped entirely.
And indeed, there have been several stories in the past year proving that this is still happening all over the place.
OMG Media, for example, reported on this internal document at Best Buy, in which the company announced a partnership with McKinsey & Company on a management training program.
You can see the image on the screen.
The document states, Candidates for these programs must meet the requirements below.
Identify as Black, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Islander.
So unless you're one of those preferred identity groups, or at least willing to identify as one, then you don't get the extra training.
Of course, if the listing had said that only white people were allowed to participate, then Merrick Garland would have sent a SWAT team into Best Buy headquarters before dawn the next day.
But excluding white people from professional opportunities is fine.
Best Buy had no problem doing it openly, admitted to it, proud of it.
Now, when they were finally caught, they did not immediately renounce the document.
They didn't issue an apology and fire everybody involved or anyone.
Instead, the CEO of the company went private on social media.
That was their way of dealing with it.
Store managers called the police on James O'Keefe for standing in the mall parking lot.
And eventually, Best Buy changed the job posting to remove the references to racial requirements entirely.
Watch.
Hey everyone, James O'Keefe with OMG here.
We have an update on our Best Buy story, the original McKinsey leadership training sign-up page.
With that program, with certain racial requirements, well, the page online has been removed.
What is left appears to be a reworded outline of the program in question, where they removed the specific racial requirements listed originally that we reported last week.
We've also been in contact with other sources inside corporations, including Foot Locker, with reports of McKinsey leadership programs for everyone but white people there.
So, of course, it's not just Best Buy and Foot Locker that are running anti-white programs like this.
Pretty much every organization in every industry is doing it.
Even industries where lives are clearly at stake.
Just this week, for example, a top medical fellowship announced that it's going to stop excluding white applicants, not because they realized it was wrong, but because they were forced to do so.
Quoting from the Washington Examiner, quote, a top medical fellowship for women Well, stop excluding white applicants after a complaint accused the program of being racially discriminatory in light of the Supreme Court outlawing affirmative action last year.
Do No Harm, a non-profit organization that serves as a watchdog in the healthcare industry, filed a lawsuit in June on behalf of female students who met the criteria for the $20,000 award offered by the American Association of University Women but were excluded on the basis of race.
So, that's some progress.
Progress that's happening, again, totally to the chagrin of these people.
They are forced to give up the discriminatory program.
They didn't want to.
But it's still not clear why the fellowship is allowed to exclude men.
I mean, it's still discriminatory, but they've just narrowed it down a little bit.
And they got rid of one part of the discrimination, but kept the other, which doesn't really make any sense.
If we want the most qualified people in medicine, And I would think that we do.
Then it doesn't matter if 100% of the doctors and nurses happen to be straight white men, or gay black women, or trans Australians, or any combination of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
What we want to know is that when you're laying down on the operating table, whoever is performing the surgery is there because they are the absolute most qualified people.
The only thing that should matter is the quality of their work.
Which isn't complicated.
But this fellowship still requires that applicants identify as women, even though there's a 0% chance that they can even define the word, but that's what they put in there.
There are many other examples along these lines.
The Daily Wire reported earlier this month that the tech giant Oracle, quote, hosted scholarship and internship opportunities in conjunction with the United Negro College Fund that excluded both white and Asian applicants on the basis of their race.
There's a whole section on eligibility requirements that limits ethnicities to African American slash black, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Hispanic American.
So no whites and no Asians allowed.
Then there was NASCAR's listing for an internship that included this requirement, quote, Be a member of one or more of the following race-slash-ethnic-minority classifications.
Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Latino or Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
Like Best Buy, NASCAR took that listing down once people noticed it.
Or rather, once the wrong people noticed it.
They took it down.
So they at least pretended that they regretted their decision to openly discriminate against
whites, even though they obviously didn't.
And that appears to be the trend in corporate America at the moment.
But there's one major company that's not backing down from its overt anti-white racism at this
point.
They apparently don't care how many people notice.
They are firmly in the camp of restricting opportunities for certain applicants on the
basis of their skin color.
And in this case, we're talking about Apple, which, depending on when you check, is the biggest company on the planet.
Certainly one of the biggest.
Apple has pushed various DEI initiatives over the years, which is why their operating system offers emojis of pregnant men.
It's also why they recently ran an advertisement featuring an overweight black woman representing Mother Earth.
But now, Apple is doubling down on something called the Apple Entrepreneur Camp, which has apparently been running for a little while now.
Here's what the application process for the Apple Entrepreneur Camp entails, straight from the Apple website.
Quote, Apple Entrepreneur Camp supports underrepresented founders and developers and encourages the pipeline and longevity of these entrepreneurs and technology.
Attendees benefit from one-on-one code-level guidance, receive unprecedented access to Apple engineers and experts, and become part of the extended global network of Apple Entrepreneur Camp alumni.
Applications are now open for female, with an asterisk, Black, Hispanic-slash-Latinx, and Indigenous founders and developers.
In other words, no white or Asian men are allowed.
By virtue of their skin color, they don't get the unprecedented access to Apple engineers and experts.
Which, by the way, also means that Apple can't claim that, well, no, we didn't open this for white people because white people already have these opportunities.
So we didn't need to.
But you just said it's unprecedented access.
So there's no precedent.
Meaning this is a kind of access that no one else is getting, only the people who are in this program, and it's a program that Asian men and white men are not allowed to apply to.
So they don't get that, they don't get the one-on-one guidance, they don't get any of it, because they're white or Asian.
And therefore, a certain level of access to Apple engineers and experts, which could obviously be vital to their careers, is closed to them.
And Apple's just coming right out and saying it.
Not that Apple cares about this, or has been forced to care at this point.
But this is obviously not even remotely legal.
I mean, this is flagrantly illegal.
Title 42 of the U.S.
Code, Section 1981 states that everyone in the United States has the right to make contracts without regard to skin color.
That includes the right to enter into employment arrangements and programs like the one Apple is offering.
And no entity, whether public or private, has any legal right to impair that ability on the basis of skin color.
You are not allowed to have programs like this, as a company, where you explicitly say, these races and these demographic groups are not allowed.
That is, again, flagrantly illegal.
And Apple knows this.
But no one's stopping them.
No white or Asian plaintiff has sued, and the DOJ certainly doesn't care, so they're just ignoring the law.
As best I can tell, they've been running similar programs for more than a year, and now that this one's getting attention, they still don't care.
They haven't apologized.
This is what they believe.
Actually, it's even more embarrassing than that.
In the eligibility requirements, there's, as I said, an asterisk by the word female.
And here's what Apple says when you check into what that means.
Quote, Apple believes that gender expression is a fundamental right.
We welcome all women to apply to this program.
So this is what's known as a loophole.
If you're an Asian or white man who really wants to get into this camp and, you know, take advantage of that unprecedented access, well, there's a pathway open to you if you're willing to take it.
If you have no shame and no embarrassment and you want to go for it, you can.
You just have to tell Apple that you're a woman and they'll let you in.
You have the fundamental right to demand that Apple recognize your womanhood.
So a man does not have the right to access this program as a man, but he does have the right to say he's a woman and then access it.
So that's the way it works.
That's how important gender expression is to Apple.
But if you don't do that, and you know, because you want to be like honest, And you're white or Asian, and you're a man, then you won't even be allowed in the building.
Now, the exclusion of Asian applicants is, I think, worth highlighting in particular, given that Asian people are, they're not white.
And also, they've been very successful in the tech world and in many other industries.
Apple's response to their success is to exclude them.
This is an ethnic minority group, in America anyway, not globally, but in the United States, a minority group, extremely successful, and so a lot of these companies, they respond to that by punishing them.
It's like, imagine a school producing lots of NFL stars, and then an NFL team responds to that by making sure to not recruit from that school.
And that's basically how the corporate world handles recruiting now, except with races instead of schools.
Now, of course, white people have also been particularly successful at Apple, too.
This is what their current senior leadership looks like, as you can see.
None of these white guys are going to resign their posts to make room for more diversity.
They've obtained power and success.
They're not going to give it up.
Instead, they're going to punish white people who are just starting out in their careers.
You know, it's just the old pulling up the ladder behind you move.
And they know that.
If they make some sacrifices on the altar of DEI, then the activists will leave them alone.
So that's what they're doing.
Now the good news is that more people are willing to call this madness out.
Some politicians on the right have even noticed the problem of anti-white racism and are willing to talk about it, which is a fact that's very disturbing to the race hustlers on the left.
Last night, Joy Reid, chief of the modern-day race hustlers, lamented the fact that Donald Trump wants to put a stop to anti-white racism.
Watch.
Republicans like Vance and Trump advisor Stephen Miller, who is tangentially connected to Project 2025, have made it a point to block these disbursements.
In Project 2025, folks like Miller, Vance, and Trump want to nationalize their long-term goal of putting a stop to what they call Anti-white racism, which is just another way of saying we're sick of America being held accountable for actual racism.
Under Project 2025, the Department of Justice would play the central role in executing their national policy of reversing racial progress.
They would force the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for enforcing federal statutes that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, or religion, or sex, disability, or national origin, to refocus.
Moving away from what they call affirmative discrimination and ensure, quote, lawfulness, which essentially means protecting the people who've had access and opportunity all along.
So what she's complaining about there specifically is that Trump says that he would stop programs that dispense aid and relief to Americans based on race.
Which doesn't mean he's going to stop giving aid and relief to Americans.
All he's saying is, like, everyone should have an opportunity to it, to access it, not just, and we shouldn't be looking at certain Americans and say, no, you got the, you have the wrong skin tone, so you're not allowed.
Because if you're going to have programs to help people, everyone should have access to those programs regardless of their race.
That's Trump's position.
But people like Reid disagree.
She quite explicitly believes that white people are and should remain a disfavored group because she is an unapologetic anti-white bigot.
But the truth is that, you know, it's good for politicians to get involved here on the right side of the debate.
But all it really takes to put a stop to this is a few brave plaintiffs who are willing to step up and end all of this.
There are lawyers at conservative firms all over the country that would be more than happy to take a case as cut and dry as the case at Apple.
It really doesn't take much.
But until that happens, until these corporations have to face a real financial cost for their overt discrimination, they're going to keep doing it.
What Apple is doing in particular is a clear sign that the DEI obsession has not gone anywhere.
If anything, it's only become more pronounced.
And these corporations have become more emboldened in the process.
Yesterday I talked about the collapse of the fake consensus on gender procedures for children and adolescents.
All that took was one journalist asking one question to the American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and the whole consensus crumbled.
That's ultimately an encouraging development.
It suggests that maybe all it takes for companies like Apple to stop their anti-white discrimination is for one job applicant, just one, to say that he's had enough.
Enough.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Daily Wire reports CNN anchor Jim Acosta cornered Michael Tyler, communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, asking what possible reason they could have for not doing a press conference, noting that Harris hasn't been the Democratic de facto nominee for over three weeks.
Acosta asked why the vice president has continued to avoid interviews and even direct questions from the media.
And let's see how Kamala's campaign handled that line of questioning.
Uh, would it kill you guys to have a press conference?
Why hasn't she had a press conference?
Listen, the Vice President and Governor Walz have been busy crisscrossing this country since the launch of this campaign and adding Governor Walz to the ticket.
You saw the ways in which they went across the battleground states last week, generating rallies of thousands, 10,000 here, 15,000 there.
But Michael, you know a campaign rally is not a press conference.
Do you mind if I cut in?
I mean, you know, a campaign rally is not a press conference.
Why isn't she at a press conference?
She's the Vice President.
She can handle the questions.
Why not do it?
We absolutely are going to do it.
You hear her take questions as she's out on the stump and she's, as she said last week, we're going to be having a sit-down interview here before the end of the month.
What she's going to be focused on and what this campaign is going to be focused on is communicating directly with the voters that are actually going to decide the pathway to 270 electoral votes.
That's why she committed to a press conference this past week.
That's why we're doing a bus tour in Pennsylvania as we head into Chicago.
And it's why we'll sit down for an interview before the end of the month.
I don't want to, you know, belabor this, but one interview before the end of the month.
I mean, that's not a lot.
where she wants to take this country in the contrast that we're going to have
with Donald Trump. We're going to have plenty of opportunities to do that throughout the rest of this month.
Michael, but one interview by the end of the month.
I don't want to, you know, belabor this, but one interview before the end of the month.
I mean, that's not a lot. I mean, can you commit to a press conference before the end of the month?
We will commit to directly engage with the voters that are actually going to decide this election.
And that is going to be complete with rallies, with sit-down interviews, with press conferences, with all the digital assets that we have at our disposal.
OK, so first of all, can we note just how pathetic it is that this very mild pushback from Jim Acosta is so notable?
Like, this clip is circulating everywhere, especially on right-wing social media.
I mean, it was on the Daily Wire website.
We reported on it.
And everyone is stunned that Acosta did this.
All he did was ask a very basic, obvious question, and then gently, gently push back, with a smile on his face, for about a minute.
Trying to get an answer.
So I give him no credit and I award him no points for this.
I'm not impressed.
This is his job.
It is his job.
And we would never do that.
I hate when we do this with these liberal journalists that ask one real question and we say, oh wow, credit where it's due.
Credit where credit is due here.
Well done, thank you for that.
You wouldn't do that anywhere else, in any other context, right?
You wouldn't go to Walmart and get in the checkout line, and when the cashier is scanning your groceries, turn to everybody else in the line and say, wow, guys, get a load of this.
She's scanning the groceries.
Credit where credit is due.
Wow, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for doing this one single thing that you're supposed to do.
The whole reason you're here is to do this thing, and thank you so much for doing it.
Credit where credit is due on this one.
I gotta say, I gotta hand it to her on this one.
Look at her, look at her.
She's scanning the groceries.
Handing me a receipt.
Wow.
Wouldn't do that in any other context.
Walmart might be a bad example, because actually, if you go to Walmart and see anyone actually doing their job, it is pretty impressive.
But you get the point.
That Jim Acosta is just performing the most basic function that he's supposed to perform.
And we shouldn't give him credit for that?
This is what we should expect and demand from these people?
Meanwhile, the answer from the Kamala Lackey is pretty hilarious.
He says, oh yeah, sure.
Yeah, Kamala, she'll definitely sit down for an interview by the end of the month.
That's all they're going to commit to.
One interview with someone, sometime in the next two weeks.
That's what we're getting, which is amazing, truly.
I don't think there's been a presidential candidate who has ever been this afraid of answering questions.
And she's this afraid of a media that we can never fail to emphasize is completely on her side.
They want to help her.
The whole reason they want to do a press conference and an interview is to help her.
So they want to help her create propaganda material for her campaign.
Now, with that said, as I've said now several times, I don't blame Kamala for not doing interviews or press conferences.
It's a smart strategy for her.
She's dumb.
She doesn't think well on her feet.
I think even more to the point, she has a terrible record spanning back decades that she doesn't want to talk about.
She's running as though she's a fresh-faced newcomer to the scene, but she's been in politics for like 25 years, and her record is terrible the whole way through.
She wants us to forget about everything she's ever done or said ever.
None of that exists.
It's like it never happened.
And then that on top of being a moron, it's like, well, yeah, you know, I can see why she doesn't want to answer any questions because even in front of a friendly media, it's just inevitable that They're going to ask some questions she doesn't want to answer because she can't answer any questions, like any question at all.
The whole Kamala thing is such a facade that any real question threatens to puncture it.
And that's kind of the problem for Kamala Harris.
So, if she can get away with not doing an interview and not taking questions, strategically I can't blame her.
So that's sort of the You know, that's the difficult spot that we're in as conservatives where we know that her doing an interview, the whole reason we want her to do an interview, right, like if we're being honest, we want her to do a press conference or an interview because it will be embarrassing for her.
She will do poorly, we know that, and that's why we want her to do it, right?
So that's clear, but then when we're making the argument, from their perspective, it's like, yeah, well, right.
But we don't want her to be embarrassed, so that's why she's not gonna do it.
So it's a hard argument for us to make.
When we're saying, hey, come do this thing that's gonna make her look really bad.
Come on, why not?
It'll be fun.
Be a good sport, come on.
It'll be a fun challenge.
It's just a hard case to make.
Alright, Daily Wire reports this.
Elon Musk and J.K.
Rowling could face time behind bars after Iman Khalif filed a cyberbullying lawsuit against them for pointing out that the Algerian boxer who failed past gender tests per the International Boxing Association was allowed to fight against female boxers at the Olympics.
The ex-owner and the famed Harry Potter author were some of the higher-profile people named in the suit who took to social media to call out the International Olympic Committee for allowing Khalif to compete in women's boxing.
Who else was named?
Was I named?
I don't think I was.
I'm, like, a little bit insulted.
Why am I not being sued also?
I'm a way bigger bully than those two.
Come on.
No, I didn't bully anyone.
Saying something that's objectively true is not bullying.
Following the Paris Summer Olympics, Khalif filed a criminal lawsuit in France claiming acts of aggravated cyber harassment.
If the boxer wins, Musk and Rowling could face anywhere from two to five years behind bars because in France, the punishment for cyber bullying is jail time and fines.
Now, look, I don't think that Elon Musk and JK Rowling are going to spend any time in a French prison for cyberbullying.
But who knows?
I mean, I guess I wouldn't be surprised if the Biden administration tried to extradite Elon Musk to serve his sentence for being a bully.
And Rowling is in the UK, so we know she's screwed.
We'll see if it comes to that.
But the claim here is that Musk and Rowling and anyone else who said that Khalif shouldn't be boxing against females.
Because he's a male, is a bully.
And that claim maybe lent some credibility in a French court.
I don't know.
I mean, I would expect that it probably is.
This is France, after all.
But in reality, like in the real world, is it bullying?
Of course not.
The whole thing really comes down to one question.
Is Khalif actually a male?
Now, if Iman Khalif comes out and says, no, I am actually a female, literally biologically a female.
Scientifically, I'm a female.
If that were to be the case, then he would have a case that the criticism is unfair.
Now, it still would not be defamatory on the part of Elon Musk or J.K.
Rowling or anybody else, because we are going based on the information that we have.
The people saying that he's male are saying that because that's what they believe, based on the information from the International Boxing Association.
That's where it's coming from.
So if the International Boxing Association is wrong, and Khalif doesn't have XY chromosomes, As they've said he does, then that's on them.
Your dispute is with them, not with anyone else who's simply reporting what that organization said.
But as far as I know, nobody on Khalif's team is even saying that.
As far as I know, no one on the pro-Iman Khalif side is even coming out and disputing the scientific ...basis of the International Boxing Association or the criticisms of Iman Khalif.
As far as I know, no one has come out and said, no, no, actually, he has XX chromosomes.
This is a female.
This is literally a female.
No one has said that.
Instead, we're getting, oh, it's mean to criticize him.
It's too harsh.
It's not his fault that he found out at some point later in life that he's actually male and it was quite devastating.
And that I would believe.
Like if you were to tell me that Iman Khalif up until recently thought that he was female and then found out through testing that he's really male and was devastated to learn that so much of his life was a lie, I'd believe that.
And in any other circumstance, I would have, you know, in these very rare cases where someone has, you know, sort of a genetic anomaly and suffers from a deformity or some sort of illness where the biological sex is not immediately obvious as it is for almost everybody.
In almost all such circumstances, I would have a lot of sympathy for someone in that position.
But once you are informed that you are in fact a male, then You can't go fight women.
And the sympathy that we would otherwise have for you goes out the window.
And that's the point.
Let's see, Libs of TikTok reports that our friend Jeffrey Marsh will be attending the DNC as a featured guest.
And she also posts this video from Marsh's TikTok, not directly related to the DNC, but it does show why it's just insane for this person to be a featured guest anywhere, let alone the convention of a major political party.
Let's watch.
Hi, love.
Here are three ways to disrespect your elders.
So if you're dealing with a narcissistic parent or a bullying boss at work, you need to 1.
Play innocent.
There's some sort of secret code or language they're using to try to get you to do what they want, and all you need to do is ask, What do you mean?
I don't get it.
Could you explain that?
Be innocent.
2.
Feel no guilt.
Bullies and narcissists use guilt as leverage And if you refuse to feel guilty, it doesn't matter what you do or what they do or say.
And number three, limit contact.
Don't do extra.
Don't go above and beyond.
Don't show up constantly, consistently, and all the time sacrificing your life for their agenda.
So there's your DNC guest of honor, and look, I've already talked about why Jeffrey Marsh is a very disturbing and disturbed person, and a bad person in general, and we've gone into that.
Here he is again encouraging his audience, an audience that is comprised largely of young people and kids.
And not like incidentally comprised of a lot of kids, but he has carefully curated an audience of children.
And here he is again encouraging them to break off contact with their parents.
Trying to drive a wedge between them and their parents.
This is a major focus of his.
As you saw in some of the videos we played last week.
He desperately wants his audience to have a bad relationship with their parents.
This is his...
Number one goal in life as an influencer, apparently, is to influence young people to alienate themselves from their parents and from their families.
In this case, he's giving advice to people with, he says, narcissistic parents or bullying bosses.
Now, we already know that in Marsh's world, narcissists and bullies are those who do not affirm everything you say and believe.
A narcissistic bully is, you know, a narcissistic bullying parent is one who loves you enough to not affirm, for example, your gender confusion.
So, in other words, in his world, narcissistic bullying parents are good loving parents.
So that's the game.
First, convince the audience to see their parents, to see any adult authority figure who questions them at all.
As a narcissist and a bully.
And then he tells you how to deal with narcissists and bullies, and the advice is terrible.
Even taken at face value.
I mean, what is he recommending here?
He says that, he's saying that you should be passive-aggressive, you should be shameless, and you should limit contact.
Notice what he does not recommend?
He doesn't recommend That you be forthright, direct, honest.
At no point does he want you to actually sit down with your parents and have an honest conversation.
This is, again, many other videos where he says, go no contact, don't communicate.
It's a good rule of thumb here.
If someone's giving you relationship advice, And the first piece of advice is not communicate, then that's someone you shouldn't be listening to.
And his first piece of advice is don't communicate.
Stop communicating.
Because he doesn't want you to go to your mom and say, hey mom, I don't understand where you're coming from or why you're treating me this way, and I'd like to talk about it.
He doesn't recommend that because he doesn't want to give mom the chance to say to her kid, no, I'm not trying to bully you.
I love you.
I'm worried about the direction you're going.
I'm worried about these friends that you've fallen in with.
I'm worried about you and I love you.
Jeffrey Marsh doesn't want to give mom the chance to say any of that.
And that's all you need to know.
If you're having an issue with a close family member and somebody recommends that you not talk to them first, anyone who actually cares about you and has any wisdom whatsoever, if you come to them with a problem you're having in your life with a loved one, the first question they should ask is, well, have you talked to this person about it?
That's the first question I always ask if anyone ever confides in me about some issue they're having with somebody else in their life.
This is what I say to my kids when they come to me, and they have an issue with one of their siblings.
My first question is, have you talked to them about this?
Have you told them how you feel?
Do they know how you feel?
Let's start with that.
Be forthright and direct.
Like, there's really never a circumstance where it's advised.
I'm not going to say never, but there are rarely circumstances, especially in personal relationships, where it would be advised to not be forthright and direct and honest.
And in fact, in this case, he's recommending passive aggressiveness as a strategy.
In this case, we can say definitively, passive aggressiveness is never the right approach, even if you're dealing with an actual narcissistic bully.
Passive aggressiveness is never going to be the recommended way of dealing with it.
If you go to someone and say, I'm being bullied by this person, have you tried being passive aggressive?
I found that passive aggressiveness really worked quite well.
But this is what you get if you're taking advice from someone who, number one, has no wisdom, and number two, has bad intentions, let's just say.
Finally, very briefly, Daily Wire reports Vice President Kamala Harris's no-tax-on-tips pitch that she enrolled in Las Vegas one month after President Donald Trump made the same proposal blindsided Democrats, some of whom had called Trump's idea bogus and an election-year ploy, according to The Hill.
Harris told her supporters last weekend, It's my promise to everyone here, when I'm president, we'll continue our fight for working families of America, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.
And Trump, of course, had proposed the exact same thing a month earlier, or two months earlier.
And now the report is that some Democrats didn't know that this was happening, and now they're kind of scrambling because they had been busy for the last month and a half.
Uh, trying to explain what the problem is with that plan.
And now Kamala Harris comes along and just steals it.
So this is the first, like, coherent, uh, sort of intelligible policy idea that we've heard from Kamala Harris.
It's the first time that she's actually said, okay, here's a policy that I want to put in place.
And it wasn't her idea.
She just blatantly plagiarized Donald Trump.
I think next week it's going to be her big idea is build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.
That's going to be her next big idea.
And the funny thing is that in my opinion, she's not only ripping off Donald Trump, but she's ripping off maybe his worst idea.
Like, it's not even a good idea.
I said this at the time when, and I'm not just saying it now because Kamala Harris is saying it, I said it at the time, and I know that I'm in a minority, apparently, among conservatives anyway on this one, but I don't think that taxes, that tips should be exempt from taxation.
If it is income, okay, if we're claiming that a tip is income, then it should be treated like any other income.
And if we're saying that tips are not income, well okay, but then you've also removed a lot of the incentive for tipping in the first place.
Because the whole reason why, and now of course everyone's asking for tips these days, but for a long time anyway, it was like you tip mainly your waiter at the restaurant.
And the reason you do it, we heard this for decades, like, you gotta tip the waiter because that's his income.
He only gets paid two bucks an hour or whatever, and his income is the tips.
Well, okay, if that's the case, then why should that income be exempt when everybody else in the restaurant, all of the patrons, they have their own income and they're getting taxed.
They might make less than he does, and so why should they get taxed if he doesn't on his income?
Like, what makes that kind of income special?
I don't understand it.
Now, as I also said at the time, I don't think we should exempt tips from taxation if we have an income tax system.
If you're going to have an income tax system, then it should apply to everybody equally, in my view.
But, I also don't think there should be an income tax system.
So if we want to talk about just getting rid of income taxes, so that waiters with their tips don't have to pay, and no one else has to pay either, then I'm all for that.
The income tax system is a horrible system.
It is inherently oppressive and tyrannical to have the government taking your money.
Just the simple fact of earning an income means that they get to come in and take your money.
It's a horrific system.
But if we're going to have it, then it's like, if you're going to have a horrific system, then it should at least be equal.
It's kind of like what I say about, say, hate crime laws.
Well, I don't think hate crime laws should exist.
I don't think we should carve out a special type of crime, you know, that we call hate crimes.
I think that if somebody commits murder or assault or anything else and it's a crime, then they should be punished based on that.
But we shouldn't have a special category where Well, yeah, if you did it because you were hateful towards these specific groups, then it's even more illegal.
I don't think we should do that.
But if we're going to have hate crimes, then it should at least be equal.
Which means that if you assault or kill a white person because you hate white people, then I will say, yeah, you should be charged with a hate crime, even though I don't think hate crime laws should exist.
But they do, and if they do, then they should be equally applied, and I say the same thing about the income tax.
Well, we started the show with it, and I'm going to tell you again, pre-sale tickets for Am I Racist are available right now at amiracist.com.
Go there, select your favorite theater, and buy your tickets now.
Am I Racist is from the white guys who brought you the hit movie What is a Woman?
For this one, I went undercover as a certified DEI expert.
And let me tell you, it's even more ridiculous than you think.
You'll be floored by how far these race hustlers go and how far I go to expose their grift.
And here's the thing.
We need you to buy these tickets right now when they're on pre-sale.
The more we sell, the more theaters will show it.
It's that simple.
Am I Racist?
In theaters September 13th.
Get pre-sale tickets right now at amiracist.com.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Last summer, Disney suffered a rare mishap on their way to defiling yet
another beloved work of fiction with the usual DEI casting and woke plotting.
Normally, when Disney wants to destroy a franchise, they don't give you much warning that it's coming.
With the Acolyte, for example, everyone kind of knew it would be garbage and a massive insult to the few remaining Star Wars fans.
But the full magnitude of the disaster wasn't clear until it actually started streaming.
Disney kept the lesbian space witches under wraps until they launched it, and then everybody reacted to it.
But with Snow White, Disney had a problem.
The Daily Mail got its hands on some photographs of what appeared to be a bunch of time-traveling hobos from the campus of Berkeley in the 1970s standing in some field in England.
In reality, these hobos were Disney's new replacements for the seven dwarves.
Disney said that instead of the seven dwarves, their new Snow White film would feature magical creatures in order to, quote, avoid reinforcing stereotypes.
Now, in another attempt to avoid reinforcing stereotypes, the film also reportedly would not include a Prince Charming, at least not as the character existed in the past.
Instead, we were told the film would feature a stronger Snow White who dreams of, you know, bossing everyone around, being a girl boss.
And they brought in the writer of Barbie to make that happen.
The film's star, Rachel Zegler, was especially adamant about her hatred of the original story, saying, quote, the original cartoon came out in 1937, and very evidently so.
There's a big focus on her love story with the guy who literally stalks her.
Weird, weird.
So we didn't do that this time.
You know, we didn't actually, when we're telling the story, we're not actually going to tell the story.
We're not doing that this time.
She also added that it's no longer 1937 and promised that Snow White is not going to be saved by the prince because she's a strong and independent leader.
Now this messaging made it pretty clear that Disney was not making a Snow White film, so the only possible reason that they'd still make a Snow White film is to do everything they can to destroy the memory of the original film and ruin it like every other franchise they've touched.
For Disney, as you probably remember, all of this publicity, the Zegler interviews, the Daily Mail leak, caused a lot of unexpected, for them anyway, pre-production problems.
People weren't supposed to see and understand just how unwatchable the new Snow White was going to be.
It was supposed to be, you know, kind of a surprise, but now there was no hiding it.
They came under fire from pretty much everyone.
The Game of Thrones actor Peter Dinklage, who has dwarfism, was especially irate saying that he was taken aback before using some profanity. He also made it clear he didn't
want dwarf actors in the film because he's the only dwarf actor who's allowed to get a
job apparently, no one else can.
He's pulling up the very short ladder behind him.
So a month later, Disney announced that they'd be delaying the release of the new Snow White film, ostensibly because of the writer's strike.
But it's pretty clear what was really going on, because Disney also released this updated photograph from the film, now featuring a CGI Seven Dwarves instead of the magical creature hobos.
It was going to be this instead.
This promotional still gave a lot of people hope that Disney had gotten the message.
It led people to believe that they'd gone back and made changes to get rid of the wokeness entirely.
But the problem is that Disney fundamentally isn't capable of making anything that is truly non-woke anymore.
They just can't do it.
You can't... When you hear Disney movies coming out, you don't need to wonder, oh, is it going to be woke?
Like, yes, it's going to be.
They don't have the personnel to make anything but that anymore.
Even after they received massive backlash.
So with Snow White, they're sticking with the girl boss messaging and presumably the feminist plotting and so on.
And we know that because of this footage from a screening of the film, which doesn't release widely until next year.
But this footage has made the rounds on the internet.
Let's see some of it.
Now you wash the dishes.
You tidy up the rooms.
You clean those cobwebs.
And he'll use the broom.
Me?
Whistle while you work.
And she'll believe together we can tidy up the place.
So I'm a merry dude.
So in the original Snow White, she cleans the cottage after woodland animals take her there.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
She's just happy that she has somewhere to remain hidden when her stepmother is trying to kill her.
And when she learns the Seven Dwarves live there, she offers to cook and clean the place for them as a sign of her gratitude.
But in this modern version, Snow White breaks into the Dwarf House.
I mean, she does that in the original, too.
Breaking and entering is a theme in both, let's admit.
But in this one, she breaks in and then forces the Dwarves to clean for her.
These Dwarves who've been toiling away all day get to come home and get bossed around by the woman whose life they're helping to save, and who they didn't invite into their house in the first place.
They have to tidy up the place and sing while they do it.
So clearly the Barbie screenwriter they hired to write this film thinks that this is a clever kind of role reversal.
The woman is in control, the men are subservient, feminism achieved.
But when you think about it, it's funny that making a feminist version of a character always means, in practice, just turning her into an unpleasant, unlikable nag.
Like, they're never portrayed as competent, kind, well-adjusted.
They're always making these weirdly passive-aggressive demands from other characters who didn't do anything to deserve it.
All you're doing is, if you want to take a beloved female character and make her feminist, all you're doing is take all the things that make her beloved and get rid of those things.
And now you have a feminist character.
There's a deeper message in all this, although it's one that's obviously lost on the Barbie writer.
And by the way, watching that scene, it's not just the writer who's very terrible at her job.
You can look at the dwarves.
Now, we can presume that this is the CGI they had to create very quickly after they jettisoned the hobos in the photographs that the Daily Mail leaked.
But it's been more than a year at this point.
Is that really the best they could do?
Like, the dwarves look uncanny and cheap.
Like something out of a Nintendo 64 cutscene in 1999.
And these are central characters in the story, even if Disney has decided to remove them from the title of the film, they still are.
Now to be fair, the one human in the scene doesn't fare much better.
Snow White's hairstyle is also weirdly ugly.
It's apparently inspired by Javier Bardem's character in No Country for Old Men.
And that's a, you know, it's a bit of a nitpick.
When you have any degree of respect for the source material, you don't make a lot of mistakes like this.
You have some level of pride in your work and you make sure that you put out something that looks like a competent production.
But the new Snow White is not a competent production because Disney doesn't care about storytelling.
They just don't care about the product they put on the screen.
And people on the right tend to think that the political bias is the biggest problem in Hollywood.
But, you know, Hollywood has been liberal for as long as most of us have been alive.
The difference is that while being liberal, they used to care about telling stories.
And they put some pride into the stories they told.
And now they don't.
And that is why Disney's new Snow White and her Nintendo 64-quality CGI dwarves 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.
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 going to sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certification.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
There's more for you in this field.
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...
White.
Folks.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist?
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
