Ep. 1431 - The Real Reason Why Kamala Won't Answer Questions
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Kamala Harris won't answer questions or talk about her policies. She's leaving it to surrogates instead. One of her most influential surrogates just declared that Kamala's actual plan is to "reimagine" democracy so that it works for everyone but white straight men. Also, Robin DiAngelo gets caught up in a plagiarism scandal. Doug Emhoff is crowned our country's new "sex symbol" by the Washington Post. And, while astronauts are stranded on the international space station, NASA is focused on decolonizing whiteness.
Ep.1431
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://amzn.to/3KfSEFc
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 your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order + FREE Fiber & Spice Supplements. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
PureTalk - Get one year free of DW+ Insider: http://www.PureTalk.com/Walsh
Responsible Man - Be the man America needs you to be. Shop Responsible Man, and get an exclusive discount with code WALSH at https://responsibleman.com/
- - -
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, Kamala Harris won't answer questions or tell us about her policies.
She's leaving it to surrogates instead, and one of her most influential surrogates just declared that Kamala's actual plan is to reimagine democracy so that it works for everyone but straight white men.
Also, Robin DiAngelo gets caught up in a plagiarism scandal.
Doug Emhoff is crowned our country's new sex symbol by The Washington Post.
And while astronauts are stranded on the International Space Station, NASA is focused on decolonizing whiteness.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Get 35% off new Daily Wire memberships with code FITE at dailywire.com/subscribe.
com/subscribe.
You'll get uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free shows, real-time breaking news alerts, and more.
But most importantly, you'll get the truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear.
Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every single day.
That sounds miserable and time-consuming.
And who has time for that?
But with balance of nature, fruits and veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure that you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients.
Bounce of Nature takes fruit and vegetables, they freeze-dry them, turn them into a powder, and then put them into a capsule.
You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and then your body knows what to do with them.
Go to bounceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's bounceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
One of the things you're not supposed to do when you're in the business of news reporting or political commentary is repeat yourself.
Saying the same thing over and over again is usually a good way to turn off your audience.
Nobody likes a broken record.
And I say that as a broken record myself.
Everyone in the media knows this.
Political campaigns know it too.
And they count on it.
They think that if they just ignore inconvenient facts, no matter how bad they may be, Then eventually people will stop talking about them because they'll get bored of continually correcting the record.
And that's why I'm going to begin by repeating a highly inconvenient fact that the Kamala Harris campaign apparently wants everyone to ignore, even though it's unprecedented in modern politics.
Which is that since becoming her party's presumptive nominee well over a month ago, Kamala Harris still hasn't participated in a single press conference or interview.
The most she's done is deflect a couple of softballs on an airport tarmac.
Harris was almost completely absent from the Sunday shows the other day, even though pretty much every single Sunday show was explicitly on the side of her campaign.
And even when Joe Biden ran for office in 2020, when he was secluded in his house supposedly because of COVID, He sat for more interviews than this.
He logged in via Zoom and only spoke to media outlets that wanted to do everything in their power to prop him up.
But still, he technically spoke to the media.
Kamala Harris isn't even capable of doing that.
And to this day, there are still no policies listed on her campaign's website.
She's given speeches about price controls and more taxes, but she hasn't outlined how any of that stuff will work in practice.
Now, this strategy of completely ignoring the public, the people Kamala Harris supposedly wants to represent and lead, has had a few predictable consequences.
One of them is that people are now digging up old Kamala Harris interviews that she gave months ago and posting them all over social media.
These interviews aren't necessarily interesting, but there's a lot of demand out there for videos of Kamala speaking in an unscripted setting, actually answering questions.
Talking about policy, so they're racking up millions of views.
And here's one of those interviews that's making the rounds.
As far as I can tell, it's from, I think, several months ago, when Joe Biden was officially still running for president.
And it illustrates very clearly why Kamala Harris isn't giving any interviews now that she's been named the party's presumptive nominee.
Watch.
On a different front, Axios this week reported that President Trump, if he gets a second term, will sort of dial back, for lack of a better term, DEI programs that the Biden administration has put in forth.
Obviously, I know you disagree with that.
I obviously believe that you don't want him to get a second term.
That said, if that does happen, what do you think that would do to race relations in this country?
Well, let me say, we're going to win, so it's not going to happen.
But I think that, listen, today is actually, I believe, an anniversary in terms of Dr. King, right?
And I was just in Selma, and we celebrated, well, acknowledged the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
I think it's really important that we as Americans always embrace our history.
The parts that we're proud of and the parts that we're not proud of but that we can't forget.
And we should all agree that we should teach history, we should learn history, if we're to ever have an accurate idea of where we want to go and where we don't want to go in the future.
And that means also acknowledging the importance of diversity.
It means acknowledging the importance of the fact that everyone should have equal opportunity to compete and equity.
And then, of course, inclusion.
That, you know, hey, let's look around the room and see who's not here and did we leave the door open?
So, no surprise that this woman is not being allowed to speak off the script.
And it's a bit like that video, it really reminds you in a lot of ways that video of Miss Teen USA, I think it was in 2007, infamous video, the one where she's asked why people can't find America on a map, and she starts by talking about the Iraq and everywhere like such as.
Kamala Harris has a similar kind of vibe to her, even when she's trying to say normal things.
Like she says, today's an anniversary in terms of Dr. King.
What do you mean in terms of?
What is that?
Just speak, just can you at least say that sentence in a normal way?
Except in this case, you know, we're talking about someone who is not at a beauty pageant.
God forbid.
We're talking about someone who wants to be president of the United States.
And she was asked, in very clear terms, to defend her administration's DEI programs,
which the Trump campaign says that it wants to dismantle.
That includes programs that would allocate tens of billions of dollars to women and minority-owned
restaurants, meaning restaurants that are not owned by white men.
It also includes the Biden administration's plan to allocate billions of taxpayer dollars
to black farmers, which a federal judge has shut down.
And of course, it includes the federal government's preferential hiring for so-called minorities, including air traffic controllers with, quote, severe intellectual disabilities.
That's who they're trying to hire there.
What could possibly go wrong?
Now, this should not have been a difficult question to respond to for Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris, by Joe Biden's own admission, is the nation's first DEI vice president.
She's constantly talking about equity and diversity and how it should be in the foreground of everything the government does.
So, this should be right in her wheelhouse.
She should have something ready to go to talk about this.
But it shouldn't even have to be off the cuff, because she should have a canned thing in her head that she just repeats.
But when you listen to the answer, it's evident that Kamala Harris knows nothing about any of these DEI policies.
Or at the very least, if she's aware of these programs, she's certainly not capable of speaking about them in any sort of coherent fashion.
So she starts speaking very broadly about the importance of teaching history.
She says that everyone should have an opportunity to compete, which isn't something that anybody opposes, by the way.
We all agree everyone should have the opportunity to compete, but the results of that competition are not guaranteed and will not be equal.
Then she meanders a little bit more, and that's how she answers every question when she's off the cuff.
This was painful to listen to for about a dozen reasons.
And it wasn't even a challenging question.
So imagine how she'd handle an actual question about anything remotely complicated.
Because Democrats are now saddled with a candidate who is somehow almost as incompetent and incomprehensible as Joe Biden, it falls on campaign surrogates to explain what Kamala Harris will do if she does indeed become the next president.
She can't explain it, but maybe other people can.
Now, normally it wouldn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of time talking about what campaign surrogates say, but in this case, Kamala has left us with no choice.
They're the only ones out there speaking.
She can't speak for herself, so others have to speak for her.
And that brings us to this recent clip from HRC President Kelly Robinson, who just spoke at the Democrat National Convention.
She gave a short speech and also appeared at an equality panel, which is where this clip is from.
Now, if you're not familiar with the HRC, which stands for Human Rights Campaign, I've exposed a lot of their previous scams on this show in the past.
They're the same organization that routinely lies about the so-called trans genocide in this country by claiming that trans-identifying people are being murdered in the streets at disproportionate rates.
And then when you dig up the numbers and you dig into the numbers in the specific cases, you find the exact opposite.
You find that in pretty much every case, these individuals are either Committing serious crimes when they were killed, like shooting at police officers or trying to stab security guards.
Or they were killed for reasons that have nothing to do with their so-called gender identity or sexual orientation.
And actually, when you factor all that in, the murder rate for trans people is lower than the general population.
But all that to say, under normal circumstances, if you were running a presidential campaign, you wouldn't want the HRC to be speaking for you.
But that's what's happening now for the Kamala campaign because they've ceded the floor.
So here's the HRC's Kelly Robinson at the DNC explaining what Kamala Harris means when she says that her presidency would restore and protect democracy in this country.
Watch.
We can't just worry about protecting democracy.
In this moment, we've got to reimagine it with people that look and love like us at the center.
And I think for us right now, it's about reimagining freedom and this American story in a way that is more revolutionary than what our founders actually put down on that little piece of paper, but instead is the type of democracy that is by and for all of the people of this country.
That's the opportunity that we have.
So she says that we have to reimagine democracy, and then she gives a clue as to how that reimagined democracy might operate.
According to Kelly Robinson, in this new democracy, people who look and love like us should be at, quote, the center.
Now anybody who's familiar with what democracy means can probably spot the problem here.
A democracy is a system of government that vests power in the general population.
It does not vest power in a small select group of preferred identities who seek to persecute and undermine other identity groups.
But that's what Kelly Robinson means when she says democracy.
That's what she means by it.
Of course, it's what Kamala Harris means as well.
When she says democracy should be about people who look and love like us, she means that democracy should work for everyone except straight white men.
Their voices are less important.
That's what she's saying.
Now, what does that look like in practice?
Presumably, it means appointing judges who will approve congressional districts that minimize the voting power of straight white men.
It means continuing to discriminate against straight white men in all aspects of hiring in both the government and the private sector.
And it means continuing to tolerate violent racial attacks on white people in broad daylight.
Here's just one of those attacks from the other day that you can see.
And this is footage from Staten Island in July.
A group of young black men violently assaulted a 62-year-old man, knocking his teeth out of his mouth and beating him.
And, you know, for no reason.
He's just walking down the street.
That's a cliche to point this out, of course, but if the races were reversed, Merrick Garland's DOJ would have opened an investigation already into this obvious hate crime.
If anything's a hate crime, if you're going to have that designation for crime, this would qualify.
But in this case, nobody in the federal government or the corporate press cares.
That's apparently, I guess, what a democracy looks like when it doesn't care about white men, which is what Kelly Robinson wants, what Kamala Harris wants.
But democracy isn't the only thing we need to rethink, according to Kamala Harris's surrogates.
In that panel discussion, the HRC lady also said that she wants to quote, re-imagine freedom.
And this is especially important to keep in mind because the Kamala campaign is running on a platform of freedom.
That is their, that's like their mantra, their slogan.
What we have to understand is that it's not freedom as we have traditionally understood it.
That's not the freedom they want.
It's this reimagined kind of freedom.
And what does that look like exactly?
And why would we need to reimagine a concept that seems to be pretty straightforward?
Like, who isn't free right now in the United States?
Except for unborn children in most states in the Union.
Now, to try to answer these questions, I went looking for some other videos from Kelly Robinson.
I came across this one from when she became the president of the HRC.
And it does a pretty good job explaining the outlook of Kamala Harris' campaign and the kinds of people who support it.
Watch.
I feel like I see this American crisis every day.
I've spent my life working in the fight for reproductive rights.
My wife works in gun violence prevention.
We have a one-year-old in the midst of a formula shortage.
Like, every single day, just in my house, I experience a crisis.
And at the same time, I know it's not just me, right?
Like, whether you care about voting rights or trans kids in schools or abortion access, no matter what the issue is, we are all experiencing an acute crisis right now.
Specifically, the LGBTQ plus community.
Every single day in my house I experience a crisis, which, by the way, you know, for any single man out there, this is like red flag number one you want to look for in a woman.
Now, I mean, in this case, she's a lesbian, so it would sort of a moot point, but a woman who says that, yeah, every day of my life is a crisis.
Every single day I'm having a crisis.
Okay, well, that's someone you want to stay far away from.
In this case, this is a woman who, assuming her salary is in line with past HRC presidents, probably pulls in around half a million dollars a year at a minimum.
She has a prominent position in the Democrat Party politics that includes prime speaking gigs at the DNC and all over left-wing cable news.
So she's one of the wealthiest and most privileged Americans in the country, to use their preferred lingo.
And yet, if we take her at her word, every single day in her house is a crisis.
She is perpetually on edge.
There are no good days to be had.
There's just a never-ending sense of panic and doom and despair in the Kelly-Robinson household.
This is an ideology of catastrophizing and self-pity.
I mean, it's pathological to an absurd and obvious degree.
And it's what the Kamala campaign subscribes to.
This is why they say that our entire system of government needs to be completely transformed into a racial and gender-based spoils system where only preferred identity groups matter.
They're unloading all of their neuroses on the rest of the country in an effort to obtain complete and total power over the people that they believe are responsible for their psychological pain.
Now, Kamala may not be able to verbalize that, because she's not really capable of verbalizing anything, certainly not anything approaching a coherent thought, but that's what her campaign stands for.
And it's the clearest example of projection that you'll find in modern politics today.
No, a vote for Kamala Harris will not end your daily crisis, because you're probably not having one.
But they are.
And the purpose of the Kamala Harris campaign, as told by the surrogates who are forced to speak for her, is to ensure that, one way or another, you experience a daily crisis, too.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
This might be the best offer Pure Talk has ever come out with.
Listen to this.
When you switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk on a qualifying plan, you'll get a free one-year insider subscription to Daily Wire+.
That's right.
Take advantage of unlimited talk, unlimited text, 15 gigs of data, and a mobile hotspot on America's most dependable 5G network for just $35 a month, and you'll get a one-year free Deal for Daily Wire Plus.
Daily Wire Plus Insider plan gets you access to our entire library of movies, series, documentaries, including Lady Ballers, What Is A Woman, Mr. Bircham, Run Hyde Fight, and more.
Plus, you get all of our daily shows uncensored and ad-free.
But the only way you can get this special offer is by going to puretalk.com.
I've been telling you to stop overpaying for your cell phone plan for a long time.
If you haven't made the switch over to Pure Talk yet, now's the time.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh today.
Switch to a qualifying plan and get a one-year free subscription of Daily Wire plus Insider.
Let's start with this from the post-millennial.
The author of the New York Times bestseller White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo, has been accused of plagiarizing some of her works from minority authors in her doctoral thesis.
The complaint, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, was filed with the University of Washington, from which DiAngelo received her Ph.D.
in Multicultural Education.
The complaint regards her 2004 dissertation, Whiteness in Racial Dialogue, a Discourse Analysis.
Which sounds like a thrilling read, and apparently it's a plagiarized read on top of it.
D'Angelo is accused of pulling two paragraphs from Northeastern University's Thomas Nakayama, an Asian-American professor, and his co-author Robert Krizak, without proper attribution and omitting quotation marks and in-text citations.
Large chunks of text from the author's work were used in D'Angelo's piece, with words
here and there splitting the sections up.
She's also accused of pulling from University of Wisconsin-Madison's Stacy Lee, an Asian-American
professor of education, in which Lee was summarizing the work of scholar David Theo Goldberg.
Dozens of cases of passing off others' work as her own were discovered.
So this is just the latest plagiarism scandal.
And I have to say that I feel a little bit bad for Robin D'Angelo here, because my movie's
is coming out in a couple of weeks.
She's a co-star in the film, and I'm sure she's really excited about that.
And this is an exciting time for all of us, all of us who worked tirelessly on this film.
And now for Robin DiAngelo, this exciting time is marred by this plagiarism scandal, which is a real shame.
But the good news, here's the good news for Robin DiAngelo, and I mean this sincerely, as a, you know, just a way of, maybe so you can take some solace in this, that I will say that when the movie comes out, nobody will be talking about the plagiarism allegations anymore.
That will not be the humiliating thing that people will be focused on when the movie comes out, which comes out on September 13th, by the way.
Get tickets at MRACIS.com.
As far as these allegations go, I will say that it's of course no surprise.
All of these people are plagiarizing constantly, which is why we get these plagiarism scandals all the time.
There's just like an orgy of intellectual theft going on.
Modern left-wing scholars, quote-unquote, in general, are just plagiarizing Incessantly, and these anti-racist types in particular are doing it.
So, you know, this is the tip of the iceberg of the plagiarism iceberg.
I don't know if anyone's checked, say, Ibram X. Kendi yet.
I would be shocked if there weren't multiple examples of plagiarism in his work.
I'm not accusing him.
I don't know that, to be clear.
I'm not saying that there is.
I have no idea.
I just don't know.
I am saying that he's exactly the kind of ridiculous intellectual lightweight who has made his living in a fraudulent, made-up, you know, phony field who would plagiarize.
But I don't know.
I just don't know.
But the truth is that You know, you can hardly blame Robin DiAngelo for plagiarizing.
You know, throw a stone in a room full of anti-racist scholars, and I'm not saying that you should, I'm not advocating violence here, I mean metaphorically.
Throw a metaphorical stone in a room full of anti-racist scholars, and you'll hit a plagiarist, most likely.
And if the stone bounced off of ten of their heads, like a rock skipping across a pond, you'd probably hit ten plagiarists.
And the reason is that the whole entire field is so intellectually bankrupt, just down to its core.
And that's why you get all this.
Because again, you know, most areas of scholarly pursuits in modern academia are intellectually bankrupt in this way.
It's really impossible to come up with a new idea or new insight for these people.
Because there is, in most of these areas, there is At most, one central idea and every other idea just restates the central idea.
There's one central idea, it's the only idea in the whole field, and so if you're writing a paper, all you can really do is just like repeat the same idea over and over again.
So, for anti-racist scholars, and I use the term scholar of course very loosely, but for these types, the one single idea they have is that White people are inherently racist and are inherently oppressors, and black people are inherently victims and are inherently oppressed.
And that is really it.
Like, that is the entirety of what they have to say.
They really don't have anything else to say but that.
That is the entire thing.
That's the entire deal.
If you were to go to school and take a PhD-level course in anti-racism, whatever, It's just going to be that.
I mean, you could spend seven years studying it and reading all the books, and it just boils down to that.
That's it.
That's all you need to know.
And when there's really one idea, and it's such a flimsy, useless idea as that, well, it's no surprise that there's a lot of recycling.
And they don't even know that they're doing it.
Everything they say is recycled.
And when they're recycling, are they recycling their own work?
Are they recycling someone else's?
They don't know.
It's just, it's the same thing over and over again.
So, that's not really a defense of Robin DiAngelo, but I guess all I'll say is, like, you try being in the anti-racist field for 20 years and not plagiarize.
You can't.
It's impossible.
You just run out of stuff to say after a while.
I also wanted to talk about this.
Daily Wire has this article.
The Washington Post published an opinion column last week gushing over second gentleman Doug Emhoff, calling him a modern-day sex symbol.
In recent days, Emhoff has been lauded by left-wing media as a new and improved modern man who doesn't appeal to high-testosterone men.
WAPO opinion columnist Catherine Rample echoed the same in her piece, Doug Emhoff, modern-day sex symbol.
Rample explains that Emhoff is dreamy, even topping actor Ryan Gosling, because he's secure enough with his own masculinity to sometimes prioritize his wife's ambition over his own.
Move over, Ryan Gosling!
The modern female fantasy is embodied by the man who might soon become our first First Gentleman, the piece reads.
Emhoff appears to be a genuine mensch with an impressive career.
He's smitten with his wife and supports her ambitions, as is obvious from his convention speech and their sweet interactions on the campaign trail, the most important for this sexy sobriquet.
Emhoff is secure enough with his own masculinity to sometimes prioritize his wife's ambitions over his own.
What a hunk, she says.
And of course, Doug Emhoff also cheated on his previous wife and conceived a child, and nobody knows what happened to the child.
We might guess what happened to the child.
So how does that make him a good husband?
Well, the columnist just sort of waves that away by saying, whatever his previous marital drama, Emhoff is the working woman's ideal partner.
So yeah, just previous marital drama.
Just a little drama he was involved in.
Now we've talked about this a few times recently, the media is desperately trying to turn Doug Emhoff into the new masculine ideal.
And the attempts are just getting more and more desperate with each passing day.
To the extent that now they're claiming that not only is he this masculine manly man, the new mold of a manly man, but he's also a sex symbol.
Doug Emhoff, who looks like and has the demeanor of Like the substitute teacher that you always love to get in social studies in 7th grade because he would just sit there and let you do whatever you want.
And kids would yell at him and call him by his first name, derisively, and he would just sit there and not do anything.
And we're now being told that women find that sort of henpecked, meek, non-assertive, pushover kind of vibe attractive.
And of course that's nonsense.
And what we have to understand is that they don't believe it.
This is the self-induced brainwashing that feminists are trying to perform on themselves.
They're trying to gaslight themselves into thinking that guys like Doug Emhoff are attractive.
Because this is what they want.
Or rather, I should say, this is what they want to want.
They want to want a Doug Emhoff.
They want to want the Doug Emhoff type.
They want to find it attractive when a man supports his wife, quote-unquote, by taking a back seat and letting her career be the most important thing in their relationship.
They want to be swept off their feet and fall madly in love with a man who says, yes, honey, you go out and earn the big bucks.
I'll stay home with my apron on and bake muffins and I'll keep the floors nicely swept for you.
And I'll make the bed for when you come home.
That's the kind of role reversal that they want to want.
And their principles, such as they are, their ideology tells them they should want it.
And they want to want the men who will go along with it, but they don't.
They simply just don't.
Because biology wins.
Biology is undefeated.
It still is.
Undefeated.
Like, millions of years and counting.
Hasn't lost one time.
It is biologically hardwired in women to desire men who are strong, assertive, capable of protecting and providing for them.
It is much more attractive to a woman, even a feminist.
Though she won't admit it.
Much more attractive when a man says, no honey, you don't need to worry about earning enough money to support the family.
I'll go out and do that.
I'll carry the burden.
I'll provide for you.
I want to give you the life that you've always dreamed of.
That's the kind of statement that is far more attractive to every woman, whether they admit it or not.
And 1,000 out of 1,000 women will find that significantly more attractive than a man who says, I'll support your career.
You go, girl.
I'll be back home waiting for you to get home.
It's just a fact, and we all know it.
Now, is it possible to change this wiring?
Is it possible to reprogram humanity to such an extent that women actually do desire the Doug Emhoffs of the world?
That women will actually, you know, they actually want men who will sit in the back seat and let them lead?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe if you force the issue for generation after generation after generation after generation, maybe if you have like 10,000 years of feminist programming to counteract 10,000 years of human civilization working against that programming, maybe then.
Maybe.
A woman can honestly say that she wants a Doug Emhoff, that she desires a Doug Emhoff.
Doug Emhoff will be the new heartthrob, maybe, like 10,000 years from now, if Doug Emhoff can hold out that long.
But unfortunately, civilization itself can't hold out that long, because as we talked about Civilization won't survive for 10,000 years of feminist leadership, because feminists are incapable of actually leading.
And again, they don't really want to.
So they don't really want the leadership role, they just want to want it.
And that's the way all this works.
All right, let's listen to this from Cory Booker calling on Americans to kill what he calls the MAGA strain of the Republican Party.
I mean, she's the incumbent vice president.
Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 of the last 16 years.
How can Democrats talk about a new chapter turning the page?
You guys are the ones writing the book.
Well, you know that that's not true, Jake, because you know politics like I do.
Right now, we see the MAGA Republicans in Congress killing all kinds of pragmatic policies that we need to get done.
On the most contentious issue, we had a bipartisan deal settled on by Senator Lankford, a right-wing Republican, and Chris Murphy, a blue-state Democrat.
And what killed that deal?
What killed the pragmatic progress?
Wasn't the sensible Republicans, but really people that were kowtowing to Donald Trump.
His influence is egregious and incredible.
From his appointment of three people to the Supreme Court that are now rolling back the most fundamental of our rights and freedoms, like bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
So to say that the MAGA Republicans are not still undermining common sense, pragmatic, sensible politics is just wrong.
And what I know this election can do is finally kill that strain of the Republican Party in a way that I think helps the pragmatic Republicans come back.
I'm one big believer we get a lot more bipartisan work done than people realize.
Now, most people seem to be focused on the violent language here.
He talks about killing off the MAGA strain of the party, which is really violent two times over, because first, he wants to kill it off, and second, he's referring to human beings like a virus.
And needless to say, if a conservative said this about the left or any group on the left, they would be excoriated for it.
But the thing that annoys me the most about this statement from Cory Booker is not that he wants to kill off MAGA.
I already knew that, and I know that he would do it literally if he could.
Like, he'd like to see it literally happen.
No question about it.
But the more frustrating thing is the reason he gives for wanting to conduct this extermination.
He wants to restore the old Republican Party, right?
He wants to put the sensible, the pragmatic Republicans back in charge.
He says.
And you hear this kind of thing from Democrats a lot these days, this fond reminiscing over the Republican Party of 15 years ago, the nostalgia for the Republican Party controlled by the Bush family and Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney and those types, McCain and so on.
You know, I'm old enough to remember what it was like during those years.
And I remember quite vividly that the Democrats back then did not celebrate Republicans for being sensible and reasonable.
It will shock you to learn, if you're younger than me.
Despite all the nostalgia that we hear from Democrats, I remember how Republicans, there was so much, we got along back before Trump came.
No.
Okay, they didn't look at Republicans back then and say, oh, well, these are the good, I respect, these are honest, intelligent people, and they're sensible, and you know, we might disagree, but they're good people.
Hey, we can work together and everything's fine.
That was not the case.
No, they accused those Republicans of being genocidal, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic despots.
They said all the same stuff about those Republicans that they say about MAGA, that they say about Trump.
Now, they may have said it slightly less passionately and with slightly less emphasis.
They may have been slightly less vigorous in their slander of Republicans back then, maybe, but, and I'm not even sure if that's true, but they said all the same stuff.
Now, there are things they're doing to Trump that they didn't do, so they are certainly more desperate now.
The law fair, the criminal cases, multiple impeachments.
They talked about doing all that stuff to Bush, to pretty much every prominent Republican politician, especially presidents and presidential candidates.
But they didn't actually do it.
So, yes, they have ramped things up considerably.
But the basic, I mean, we should be clear about this, the basic rhetoric is the same.
It's the same stuff.
They've been saying this forever.
And now they want to convince us that, because really, it's a way of trying to, it's a sleight of hand trick with conservatives and people on the right.
Where they're basically saying, hey, get rid of Trump.
Get rid of the MAGA.
Don't vote for him this time.
Let him lose and fade off into obscurity.
And then if you do that, then everything will be fine, because then it'll be the good Republicans in control.
And we like them.
And we'll like each other again.
And we won't do anything to hurt you guys.
You can trust us.
That's kind of what they're telling.
That's what they're trying to convince conservatives.
But I shouldn't have to tell you, don't buy it.
Because one way or another, Trump is running for, if he wins, it's his last term.
By the end of this next term, whether it's his term or Kamala's, God forbid, he'll be 82 years old.
So one way or another, Trump In the next several years, the Republican Party, politically, is going to move on from Trump, just because of the realities of term limits and also aging.
It's just, you know, it's going to happen.
And I can guarantee you that whatever happens next, and I don't know exactly what's going to happen next, or who kind of seizes the mantle of the Republican Party after Trump, But whoever that person is, like whoever it is, is immediately demonized to the nth degree.
Okay?
I mean, of course, that's the way it's going to work.
One last thing I want to, I guess, talk about here briefly.
There's been, and we talked about this yesterday, so I just, yet again, being a broken record, I guess, but there's been a lot of controversy And I guess metaphorical right-on-right violence over pro-life issues as of late, especially over the past week.
And in just the last few days, Trump came out and said that his administration would be great for reproductive rights, so-called.
We talked about that yesterday at length.
Also, J.D.
Vance said that the administration would not support a federal abortion ban, which is something we've heard before from Trump.
So that was, I don't think, was any great surprise.
Those two things have happened in the last few days.
And this has led some pro-life activists to say that they can't support Trump anymore because of this position, and they're not going to vote for him.
Meanwhile, some other conservatives are attacking those pro-lifers, calling them grifters and traitors and so on.
And so I want to wade into the middle of this and kind of give my take on the whole thing.
And I think everyone is getting a few bits sort of wrong here.
So, I think the Trump camp is, as we said yesterday, is wrong for coming out and endorsing reproductive rights.
In those words, quote-unquote reproductive rights.
Again, we talked about it in detail yesterday.
I'm not going to rehash it.
You can go listen to that and hear my argument.
I think it's not just morally wrong, but also just politically counterproductive in a huge way.
It doesn't help him politically to start talking about reproductive rights for much the same reason that it wouldn't help him politically to start talking about the importance of trans rights.
Okay, the number of voters you win as a Republican talking like that is dwarfed by the voters that you demoralize.
And that's the basic point there.
On the other hand, I understand politically I do understand politically why the Trump campaign isn't arguing for or calling for a national abortion ban.
Now, I would love to see a national abortion ban.
I think abortion should be banned federally.
And the argument for it is quite simple and quite incontrovertibly correct, I think, which is that abortion is a violation of human rights.
You know, laws that Legalized abortion are a direct assault on human rights because they are directly removing the humanity and not recognizing the humanity of an entire group of people.
And so it is therefore a constitutional issue and therefore a federal issue and can be banned.
It can be banned for the same reason that no state in the union would be allowed to legalize slavery.
Okay?
It's for the same reason.
Same reason.
But I also know that it would be politically catastrophic for Trump to come out and promise to ban abortion federally.
I mean, it's political poison.
He'll lose if he takes that position.
He just will.
I wish it wasn't the case.
I really wish it wasn't the case.
But it is.
It just is.
All of the available data, all of it, all of the evidence, all of it points to one simple conclusion, which is that Trump Probably can't win if he comes out in favor of a federal abortion ban.
And if he doesn't win, Kamala does, and more babies die.
A lot more.
A lot more.
Not to mention a lot more pro-lifers go to federal prison.
And that's part of this conversation that isn't being talked about enough.
But the Biden administration is a, has been on a crusade, is on a continued crusade, to Not just, like, try to discredit pro-lifers, but to make pro-life activism illegal, and to put you in jail for it, and they're doing it.
Now, so this is... For me, this kind of dynamic, the nuance here, it's not very hard to grasp or to admit.
There are plenty of positions that I hold that I don't expect a candidate for national office to come out for while they're running for office, you know?
I also think Just to give another example, I think that all so-called, quote-unquote, gender-affirming procedures should be banned.
And I mean for children and adults.
That's what I think should happen.
I think they should be banned federally.
I think there should be a federal ban on all of these kinds of procedures, whether surgical or, you know, using drugs or anything like it.
But I don't think it'd be politically wise for Trump to go that far right now.
At this point, I think that calling for a ban on procedures on children, you can call for that and should.
Trump has called for that, only he put the stipulation of that this will not be allowed.
You can't do this to children without parental consent.
I would take out the without parental consent part of it and say you can't do it to children, period, whether the parents consent or not.
So, but that you can do.
Like, that's a good starting point.
And let's protect the kids first.
For me, it's not nearly enough.
But it's a good starting point.
It's a political winner.
You can win on that.
And you gotta win.
You have to win or nothing else matters.
But probably if he came out and said, you know what, I would ban it for everybody.
That would be pretty politically disastrous.
I'd agree with it.
I mean, I would argue passionately for it if he did take that position.
On its merits, but I wouldn't recommend saying that right now, because you gotta win.
You have to win.
And I'm not going to demand that Trump take a position that will probably sink his campaign, because that's suicide.
It's a kamikaze mission.
And what does it achieve?
Kamala Harris needs to not win.
She just needs to not win.
Now, on the other hand, The pro-lifers criticizing Trump for this, or even saying they won't vote for him, these are not bad people.
These are not con artists, right?
I've worked with these people for years.
They've been on the front lines of this fight for a long time.
They care deeply about it.
The vast majority, vast, vast majority of pro-life activists Are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.
They're not making any money or very much money as activists.
I mean, the vast majority.
Most of them, and I've been to a lot of the fundraising dinners, by the way, and, you know, every once in a while there's one that's like a little bit fancier, but most of the fundraising dinners you go to are, these are held by pregnancy resource centers and they're in a, you know, like a holiday in conference hall and you have some buffet food and Yeah, they're doing it because they need to make money.
They need to raise money for this is how they raise money to keep their operations open.
And that's most of the pro-life activists that I've ever encountered in my life.
This is not like, let's say, LGBT activism.
Where there are countless multi-million dollar quote-unquote non-profits paying out tons of six-figure salaries, mid six figures, high six, even seven-figure salaries in some cases.
People working with Hollywood celebrities and having the backing of all these major multi-billion dollar institutions.
This is not that.
That is not the reality of pro-life work.
It just isn't.
So, if you care, and I can't, I can't speak to the hearts and minds and motivations of every single pro-lifer out there, but I can't look inside their hearts, but I do know that if you're mainly interested in making money, don't get into pro-life work.
There's much better ways to do it.
In fact, even on the right, if you're a totally dishonest person and you say, you know what, I want to exploit activism to make money for myself, and I want to do it on the conservative side.
Well, pretty much any other vein of conservative activism, there will be more profit potential than with pro-lifers.
With pro-life work.
So, I don't... The demonizing of these people is not right.
But that brings me to my last, on the other hand, which is that, on the other hand, even though I believe that the pro-lifers pledging not to vote for Trump have arrived at that conclusion honestly, I think that this is an honest conclusion of theirs.
I think they are saying that because they think it's the right thing to say.
But I also think they're wrong.
I think they're very wrong.
Very, very wrong.
I disagree with the position.
Very much so.
Because, again, we have to deal in reality.
You have to.
You have no choice.
And there are many aspects of this reality that I wish I could change.
That I wish were not real.
There are many things about reality that I don't like.
And yet they are real, right?
I mean, I wish cancer wasn't real.
I wish that wasn't a real thing.
I wish it wasn't something I had to worry about, you know?
I wish I didn't have to, like, wear my seatbelt when I go down the highway because I wish car accidents never happened.
I wish they didn't happen.
I really wish they didn't happen.
But I put my seatbelt on not because... I'm not like...
Cooperating with the evil of traffic accidents.
I'm not causing it.
I'm not saying I like it.
I'm just acknowledging that it's a thing and I have to take that into account.
One of the aspects of reality that I wish was not the case is I wish the Republican nominee for president had not come out for quote-unquote reproductive rights using those words verbatim.
I wish he hadn't done that.
I wish that wasn't the case.
I wish it hadn't happened.
I think it was a bad move.
But it happened.
And we are still left with two choices.
Only two.
There are no others.
There are no others.
Trump or Kamala.
Kamala is rabidly pro-abortion.
She will expand abortion access in every possible way that she can.
And, again, she will continue to continue and ramp up Biden's war on pro-lifers, and on conservative activists in general, but in particular pro-lifers.
That's what will happen.
It will happen.
It's not maybe.
It's not, well, we'll see.
It will happen.
Trump will not prosecute pro-lifers.
I don't care how Trump critical you are on the right.
You know he's not going to start going out.
He's not going to start sending the federal government after pro-lifers.
That's not going to happen.
And he's not going to look for ways to expand quote-unquote abortion access.
He's not going to do that.
At worst, things will stay kind of as they are right now.
At worst.
He's not going to actively work to advance a pro-abortion agenda.
I don't care what he says right now, he's not going to do that.
He didn't do that in his first term, obviously.
As we all know, he gave us the judges that overturned Roe.
And he'd have even less incentive to do that in the second term.
Kamala will.
So, like, it's an easy choice.
And there are other issues besides abortion.
And on every other issue, on every other issue, on every single one, Kamala is way worse than Trump.
Even on the issues where I don't, you know, I don't like where Trump has landed.
And most of the time, if I don't like where Trump's landed, it's because he's too far to the left.
I'd like for him to be farther to the right.
Even on those issues, all of them, Kamala is not just like a little bit worse, or significantly, vastly, like a Grand Canyon level of difference, okay?
That much worse.
So, it's an easy choice.
Like, it's just an easy choice.
Even though, as I said, the pro-lifers who are taking this position, I know these people, I think they're honest people, I think they're good people.
I have to confess, I don't really understand the argument.
Okay, you're not going to vote for Trump, but then it will be Kamala.
That's worse!
Of course that's worse!
So if you're a pro-lifer and you're thinking of staying home, look, I understand being frustrated.
I mean, I saw that reproductive rights thing and I'm like, frustrated is an understatement.
But you're making a huge mistake and we need to save as many babies as we can.
You know, the sad, the very, very sad fact is that we can't save them all right now.
And there's no immediate future where that happens.
I don't care who's in, who wins.
I mean, you could have, we could be in an alternate reality where some pro-life, you know, Activist warrior is the Republican nominee and wins.
Still, that doesn't mean that the next day there's no more abortions, obviously.
There are a lot of babies dying.
And a lot of them.
And we can't save them all.
Politically.
Or in any other way.
We can't.
We have to save as many as we can.
We have to make the choices that will protect as many of these children as we possibly can.
We do everything we can to advance the pro-life agenda as far as we can.
Within the parameters that reality has set for us.
Not the parameters of political correctness or anything like that, but just the parameters of reality.
Because reality is where the babies are dying.
And that's where we have to save them.
And that means a lot of things need to be done, but in November it starts with voting for Trump.
You gotta vote for Trump.
Really is an easy choice.
Or it should be.
Let's talk about something that really matters.
Being a real man in a world that's trying to destroy masculinity, the radical left wants you to believe that being a man is somehow wrong, that we should all be weak, passive, and androgynous.
But here's the truth.
Society needs strong men now more than ever, and that is where a responsible man comes in.
Responsible Man, a Daily Wire Ventures company, has created the Emerson Multivitamin, not for soy boys or woke millennials, but for men who understand their duty to their families and their country.
This is not some feel-good supplement pushed by corporations pandering to the latest trends.
The Emerson Multivitamin is packed with 33 key ingredients that actually work, supporting your immune system, sharpening your mind, and keeping your body strong.
It's fuel for men who are ready to stand up against the tide of degeneracy sweeping our nation, and unlike So many products these days.
It's made right here in America.
No outsourcing.
No compromise.
Just honest quality from a company that shares our values.
Right now, you can take advantage of their Labor Day Sale.
Get 50% off your first order.
Just go to ResponsibleMan.com.
Use promo code WALSH.
That's ResponsibleMan.com.
Code WALSH for 50% off.
Remember, a strong America needs strong men.
Be the man your family and your country need you to be.
ResponsibleMan.com.
Promo code WALSH.
While other companies were busy deciding how many genders can grow a mustache, Jeremy's Razors shipped its one millionth order.
Jeremy's Razors isn't just crushing it, they're now playing in the big leagues.
Now on Walmart.com, now on Amazon Prime.
With Subscribe and Save, Jeremy is calling all men to join the winning team.
Get the radically redesigned Precision 5 razor for an exceptionally smooth and close shave.
Jeremy's Razors fighting the left and building the future, one face at a time.
Now, let's get to our daily cancellation.
First, there was all the outsourcing to cut costs following the company's move to Chicago.
And then two of the company's brand new MAX aircraft plummeted from the sky, killing hundreds of people because the plane's state-of-the-art safety software put them in a nosedive.
And then a door blew off one of the company's passenger planes mid-flight over Portland, apparently because Boeing factory workers shipped the thing without installing four very important bolts, though I imagine every bolt on an airplane is very important.
And that triggered a criminal investigation that led to the grounding of more than 100 aircraft.
And then two planes, a Boeing 757 and a Boeing 7777, lost a tire and a wheel on takeoff, respectively, and all of it was caught on video.
Now, amid all these disasters, employees at Boeing could console themselves with one fact, which is that commercial airplanes aren't the only product lines that Boeing develops.
The company has what's known as a diversified portfolio, and a big part of that portfolio is their space division.
In particular, more than a decade ago, after NASA retired its space shuttles, Boeing partnered with NASA to build space capsules and other equipment to transport astronauts into low-Earth orbit.
That part of Boeing's business, the part where they work with NASA instead of commercial aviation companies, has been relatively humiliation and disaster-free, all things considered.
Or at least, it's been relatively humiliation and disaster-free until now.
In a story that's not getting anywhere near as much attention as it should, Boeing's Starliner capsule began to malfunction as it approached the International Space Station in early June.
Five of the Starliner's thrusters stopped working, which is a big deal when you only have 28 thrusters in total.
It's about 20% of your thrust.
If you do some kind of back-of-the-envelope math on that, that's what you find.
In response, ground controllers did what you do when your computer starts acting strangely.
They shut the thrusters down and they rebooted them.
Four of the thrusters ultimately came back online, but NASA was never entirely sure what had gone wrong, and the thrusters weren't the only major malfunction.
The propulsion system also suffered five helium leaks, including a large one that was leaking 395 psi per minute.
Now, throughout all of this, Boeing insisted that the Starliner was safe enough to bring the two astronauts back home.
They said that everybody was confident in the Starliner spacecraft and its ability to return safely with crew.
But there were a lot of reasons to doubt Boeing's claims.
For one thing, the Starliner has had a lot of issues ever since it was first unveiled.
In 2019, during its first test flight, the Washington Post reports that, quote, the Starliner's onboard computer system was 11 hours off and started executing commands for an entirely different part of the mission, which burned precious fuel.
Programmers were able to send commands to the spacecraft, fixing the problem, but the spacecraft never docked with the station.
And then in a 2022 test flight, Starliner, quote, had some problems with its thrusters on that flight.
Now, these setbacks have contributed to the financial cost of the Starliner program at Boeing, which is roughly $1.6 billion over budget.
But supposedly, it was all worth it because the capsule would perform well when it counted in its final test flight this summer.
And that's what Boeing had suggested to NASA.
They've ironed out all the issues, all the kinks with thrusters and the computer, everything else, and it'll work fine.
Well, now that it's clear to the entire world that Boeing was wrong, NASA has just made the decision to essentially fire the company.
Instead of using Boeing's Starliner to bring the two astronauts back home, NASA will instead use SpaceX's Dragon capsule to do the job.
Taken together, all of these mishaps mean that Instead of spending eight days in space, these astronauts will be up there until at least February of next year, when SpaceX can come and get them.
Now, SpaceX, of course, is the company that was founded by Elon Musk, who the Biden administration has been going out of its way to demonize and investigate at every available opportunity.
But now, the Biden administration needs Elon Musk to come to the rescue and avert an international catastrophe, which is why they're turning to his company for help.
This amounts to yet another extraordinary humiliation for Boeing, a company that's had no shortage of humiliations in recent years.
But what's happening at Boeing is a familiar story in corporate America, even if the company's collapse is a bit more visible than most.
Boeing became extremely powerful and dominated the market after a merger.
It began receiving nearly half its revenue in government contracts, making it a de facto state enterprise, basically.
And the usual corruption and largesse followed.
Executives became wealthy, far wealthier than their more competent counterparts at its competitor Airbus, which is headquartered in France.
Meanwhile, Boeing's product became inferior and ultimately dangerous, and the government regulators who were supposed to enforce basic safety standards, like the Federal Aviation Administration, looked the other way.
In fact, in the case of the Boeing MAX aircraft, the FAA outsourced a lot of its supervisory role to Boeing.
They put Boeing in charge of certifying the safety of their own aircraft and their own software.
And, well, we all know how that turned out.
Now, in the case of the Starliner, it was the job of another federal agency, NASA, to supervise Boeing, at least to some extent.
And they've done a very poor job of that up to this point, as everybody can now clearly tell.
And that raises an obvious question, which is, what's going on at NASA?
How exactly have they gone from a space agency that landed men on the moon to a bureaucracy that can't even oversee a company like Boeing to ensure that its space capsule won't break down with two astronauts on board?
Well, Tenet Media tamed this window into the culture at NASA, and I think it helps give us some explanation, some insight into what's happening right now.
Watch.
And in doing this work of examining my own intentions and my own actions and their impact, I can see that there's so much more that I could have done to make the projects I've led equally welcoming to Black, Indigenous, and people of color as the white people they have engaged.
I feel a lot of shame and regret about that.
And I know that without looking head on at what I've done and not done, I won't be able to do better.
So I'm looking forward to today's event and to this whole series as steps in my personal and professional journey to make my work more anti-racist and therefore more effective in reaching my aspiration.
And this may be a review for many of you, but these are those different characteristics that you probably see coming up a lot in our workspaces, especially in the practice of science.
Perfectionism, a sense of urgency.
I'm sure all of us are feeling a sense of urgency about some of the deadlines that we maybe have right now.
The idea of power hoarding, the idea of individualism over collectivism.
Quantity over quality, either or thinking.
And so all of these things can really limit the way we go about doing our work, and they can really limit the way we are able to connect with communities that come from different cultural backgrounds that don't value these things the same way that white supremacy culture values them.
Ah yes, objectivity is a part of white supremacy culture.
Only white people are capable of being objective, apparently, is what we're told.
According to NASA, all of their employees should be ashamed of being white.
Engaging in either-or thinking makes you a bigot.
So does perfectionism, being objective, having a sense of urgency.
So, like, doing things on time and trying to do them well and holding yourself to a standard, you know, an objective standard.
Those are all under white supremacy culture on this slide.
So it makes you wonder what kind of conversations were happening at NASA ahead of this latest mission.
You should obviously want NASA engineers to be perfectionists when you're talking about guiding a space capsule to dock with a space station.
You want them to think either this will work or people will die.
You want them to care about objectivity.
You know, and not their feelings.
And that's how the old NASA was, and that's how they were able to land men on the moon with computers that are infinitely less powerful than your cell phone today.
And now with far more technology at their disposal, NASA is running DEI seminars instead.
They're celebrating failure and mediocrity.
As incredible as that footage is, it would be premature to chalk this debacle up exclusively to DEI.
The truth is we don't know exactly who was behind this failed operation or why they were selected, but we don't have to know any of those things to make a simple and straightforward point, which is that NASA's commitment to diversity and equity should be shut down immediately.
It's probably distracting from their mission, it's humiliating, and most importantly, it makes no sense.
DEI is a completely insane thing to prioritize at any point, but especially when you're going into space.
That's what NASA's doing.
NASA's already said that with their new Artemis mission, they will quote, land the first woman and first person of color on the moon.
Now what they never get around to explaining is, Like why are they doing that?
Why should anyone care about the skin color and gender of the next people to step foot on the moon exactly?
As far as I can tell on their website announcing the Artemis mission, NASA doesn't say anything about these people other than that they'll be a woman and a person of color.
They're as dehumanized as possible and we're supposed to think that that's somehow inspiring.
With Krista McAuliffe, who died in the Challenger explosion, the idea was that she was a teacher, so she could connect with students and get them interested in space.
And that was at least, you know, something of a justification.
But now we don't even get that.
Now all NASA will say is that a woman and a person of color will be on board the next trip to the moon.
Are you inspired yet?
Now, in the old days, NASA was an agency run and operated and staffed by men.
I mean, they were almost entirely men.
Not completely, but almost entirely.
And they were men who were serious, highly skilled, highly intelligent, not to mention had balls of steel.
And those are the kinds of people you need if you're venturing up into the infinite and pitiless vacuum of space.
I mean, if there's any place where diversity does not matter in the slightest, if there's any place where merit and merit alone should count, it is in space, which is an environment so merciless and so hostile and so dangerous That humans cannot survive in it for one second without an entire network of highly advanced technology all working together perfectly.
So when I was reading this story and all the stuff about DEI at NASA, I was reminded of the tagline for the first Alien movie, which was, in space no one can hear you scream.
And something similar applies here.
As much as NASA desperately wants to pretend otherwise, no matter how many diversity Zoom calls they conduct, and no matter how much they complain about white supremacy culture, there is one unavoidable fact that NASA cannot escape.
And that fact is this.
In space, no one gives a damn about your diversity.
And that is why NASA, for their incompetent oversight of Boeing and their pointless commitment to bringing DEI to the moon, Is 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.
What's more for you in this field?
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
I'm going 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.
