Am I Racist? | Matt Walsh | EP 479

Instead of remaining skeptical, I decided to believe everything I was told and let that guide my journey.

At this time, we thought it would be interesting to take a different approach. Rather than remaining a blank slate and remaining skeptical, I'll just believe whatever I'm told and then let that answer lead me to the next place. The goal was not just to ask them about it but to take what they say, put it into practice on screen so that people can see it. This is a much more direct way of sterzing these ideas than we did in "What is a Woman."

Hello everybody, I had the opportunity today to talk to Matt Walsh of "What is a Woman" fame. Many of you are familiar with that movie where Matt went out as a naive investigator into the world of gender ideology to try to answer the most fundamental question that can possibly be posed to a human being, which is can you tell the difference between the sexes. By the way, this is something that creatures without nervous systems have been able to do for 650 million years, so hopefully, the answer on your side is yes. In any case, Matt made quite a success with that documentary, and he has a new movie, "Am I Racist", which you can access at amiracist.com.

Maybe that's a question you want to be asking yourself. As many of you know, unless you live under a rock, the issue of racism has raised its ugly head in a massive way once again in our culture since about 2015, mostly because people badly educated at idiot universities have made that the center point of their propagandistic fulmination, much to the detriment of interpersonal relationships across the West and certainly relationships between different ethnicities and racial groups. It's really an appalling thing to see, and Matt has decided to hit the hornet's nest once again with this new movie and to launch himself out into the world as a diversity, equity, and inclusivity expert in search of the answer to the question that all white people, in particular, are supposed to be torturing themselves with, which is am I racist.

That's a complicated question because human beings have pronounced in-group preferences, which is why we like our families, for example. There are some downsides to that, like the fact that people who are less familiar to us are more likely to receive a more negative response instinctively, and we have to fight against that. I think we were doing this with dramatic success before the idiot propagandists got bone back in their jaw. In any case, Matt's launching this movie, and we talked a lot about the movie "Am I Racist". We also talked about Matt's conservative ethos and how those two things tie together.

People are beating the anti-racist drum because they're looking for meaning in their life, to the degree that they are not just exploiting the situation. We talked about sources of deep meaning, and for Matt and myself, the meanings in our life have really come from our dedication to our wives and our families, our kids, and our grandkids, in my case, because I'm older than Matt. We talked a lot about sources of true meaning and false meaning. You can join us for that at amiracist.com. That's the URL you want to keep in mind.

Hello Mr. Walsh, I hear you have a movie coming up. Do you want to tell everybody what it is and when it's breaking and all of that?

Matt Walsh: Yeah, we do. We have a movie coming out on September 13th. "Am I Racist" is the title, and tickets are on pre-sale right now. We opened up pre-sale about a week ago, and it's already going really well. The pre-sale for the tickets is important because that determines, in large part, how many theaters actually show the movie. People are responding in a big way, and I'm excited about it. "Am I Racist", September 13th.

Interviewer: Well, I suppose we could cut right to the punchline. We'll start with you. Are you racist?

Matt Walsh: Well, that feels like a spoiler, I guess. One thing we learn in the movie is that I'm white, so I guess the answer is yes. That is how they define racism on the anti-racist side: if you're white, you're inherently racist, and if you're not, then you're not racist no matter what you say or do. So from their perspective, the answer is yes. Unlike "What is a Woman," the first movie we made, which was a question they didn't want to answer and found hard to answer, this is an easy question for them to answer.

=> 00:05:24

Being white means you're inherently racist according to anti-racist ideology.

To get right to the punchline, we'll start with the question: Are you racist? Well, that feels like a spoiler, I guess. I mean, look, one thing we learn in the movie is that, you know, I'm white, so I guess the answer is yes. That's how they define racism on the anti-racist side: if you're white, you're inherently racist, and if you're not, then you're not racist, no matter what you say or do. So, from their perspective, the answer is yes.

Unlike "What is a Woman," the first movie that we made, which posed a question that was hard for them to answer, this is an easy question for them to answer. However, if you were to follow up and ask, "What exactly do you mean by racism? What is racism exactly?" then that becomes a more difficult question. They have no problem pointing to the people they consider racist, and really, it's just a matter of looking at your skin color and deciding from there.

Maybe we could try this: I could try to give a case from a psychological perspective for the leftist claims, and we could take them apart that way. It's a hard conversation to delve into because I don't exactly think this is properly characterized as a leftist claim. It's partly that, but it's also partly a claim of devious, manipulative, psychopathic narcissists, and that's not exactly the same as a political or an intellectual claim. Just like on the religious front, the religious claims of great monotheistic systems are often hijacked by bad actors and manipulators—that's the Pharisees in the gospel accounts. You see the same thing on the political side.

Let's delve into this a little bit because there's plenty to be said about the idea of implicit bias. That's something that the scientific community, centered at Harvard around Mahzarin Banaji and her work on the Implicit Association Test, has offered to the radicals to buttress their claims. So maybe we could delve into that a little bit because people need to understand this. Does that sound reasonable as far as you're concerned?

Yeah, I think so. Okay, so your perceptions, all of our perceptions, are biased, and they're biased towards our goals. When you look at the world, basically what you see is a pathway forward to a goal that you're pursuing, and then you see the things in the world that will either help you along that pathway or get in your way. Everything else is turned into irrelevance. Obviously, when we look at the world, we don't see most of it. We see what's right in front of us, for example, but even more specifically, we see a pathway to a goal and things that move us towards that and things that get in the way. That could be friends and foes, for example. So your goals do determine your perceptions in large measure.

Now, there are exceptions to that. If something unexpected happens, it will attract your attention, and you'll turn to investigate it. But that's basically the perceptual landscape. One of the implications of that is that we do live inside something that, if described, seems like a story rather than a set of facts. This has been more or less understood for something approximating 100 years because the psychoanalytic types like Freud and then Jung kind of caught on to this first: that we have a perceptual structure that filters the world when we interact with it.

The social psychologists got a hold of that and built a test that purported to measure implicit bias. They said they showed that we had perceptual biases that favored our in-groups. That's not really that surprising as far as I'm concerned because you obviously have an inbuilt preference to care for yourself, your mother, your father, your siblings, and you have a kin preference. Then you probably have something like a tribal preference, and then you probably have a race preference, at least insofar as other race people are somewhat novel. On that edifice was built the notion of implicit bias, and of course, the DEI types grabbed the implicit bias literature and ran with it.

=> 00:09:48

Implicit bias affects everyone, not just one group.

The research on implicit bias is unclear and speculative at best. It purported to show that we have perceptual biases favoring our ingroups, which isn't surprising. Humans naturally have an inbuilt preference to care for themselves, their family, and their kin. This extends to a tribal preference and possibly a race preference, especially when encountering people of other races who may seem novel. On this foundation, the notion of implicit bias was built, and the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) types quickly adopted this literature. It became a valuable tool for HR professionals, who could point to scientific validation.

However, many of the researchers who helped invent the Implicit Association Test (IAT), like those from Yale and Harvard, have since distanced themselves from its political implications. Yet, Dr. Boni, a notable leftist social psychologist, continues to support the implicit bias theory. The claim that humans have a bias towards those closer to them appears to be true, and this is an important issue to address. Implicit or unconscious bias exists before perception, but it can be overcome through learning. Education and socialization help modify these biases, allowing individuals to become more sophisticated in their perceptions.

Moreover, there's no reason to assume that implicit bias doesn't characterize all ethnicities and racial groups equally. The idea that we view the world through a motivated framework challenges the Enlightenment view of rationality. Enlightenment rationalists and empiricists believed that all conceptions derived from sense data, but this is incorrect.

One might argue that we've known about these biases for as long as humans have been self-aware. It's a basic idea that everyone is biased and perceives the world subjectively, influenced by their own priorities, preferences, motivations, and goals. This extends to racial biases, as history often proves.

The problem with the anti-racist DEI perspective is that they might agree with the notion of implicit bias but apply it only to white people. They see this as a fact of white human nature, distinct from the nature of all humans. This selective application is the essential problem with the current implicit bias conversation. Instead of recognizing it as a universal aspect of human nature, it is often framed as a unique characteristic of white individuals.

=> 00:13:51

The problem with the implicit bias conversation is that it unfairly targets white people and ignores that bias is a universal human trait.

The issue of implicit bias is often discussed in a way that applies to white people only. If one were to argue that implicit bias is part of the Human Condition and affects everyone, this perspective would not be widely accepted. The problem with the current implicit bias conversation is that it is not engaged as a fact of human nature but rather as a fact of white human nature. This perspective implies that white human nature is distinct and different from that of all other people. Another issue is that implicit bias is seen as something that needs to be fixed, which is problematic because the proposed solutions are often incorrect. There might be some truth at the starting point of these discussions, but they tend to fall apart as they progress.

In contrast, exploring the ways our ancient ancestors developed ideas that shaped modern society can be enlightening. Visiting historical sites, such as the places where history was made, can provide a profound understanding of our past. For example, seeing the ash from the fires when the Babylonians burned Jerusalem 2500 years ago or walking the same roads that followed the path of the crucifixion can evoke a sense of wonder. These experiences reveal what kind of resources human beings can bring to a mysterious but knowable universe, encompassing science, art, and politics.

The idea that people have motivations and goals that affect their perceptions is central to Storytelling. A story is essentially a description of the framework through which someone sees the world. In movies, the goals of the protagonist are shown, allowing the audience to see the world through their eyes. This is useful because it enables us to gain the vantage point of another person without taking any of the risks.

Philosophically, there is a significant issue here. Empiricists, who claim that all knowledge of the world is derived from objective facts, are challenged by the postmodernists who argue that we see the world through a story. This perspective was not acknowledged by scientists or enlightenment thinkers, and it presents a big problem. One solution is to observe that we have evolved ways of looking at the world, both biologically and culturally, which express themselves in traditional religious views. If these views decline, terrible ideologies may emerge.

The implicit bias types and postmodernists have a point in that we do see the world through a story. From the radical leftist perspective, only white people are seen as racist, which is where Marxism creeps in. In the 1970s, postmodernist scholars like Derrida and Foucault—the latter being the world's most cited scholar—highlighted these issues.

=> 00:18:14

Marxism's influence on postmodernism turned every human difference into an axis of oppression, making white people the default oppressors in a flawed narrative.

We have evolved ways of looking at the world, both biologically and culturally, which have expressed themselves in the form of traditional religious views. If these views decline or dissolve, we may see the emergence of terrible ideologies. The implicit bias types and the postmodernists have a point: we do see the world through a story.

Here's an explanation of why it's only white people that are considered racist from the radical leftist perspective, where Marxism creeps in. In the 1970s, postmodernist scholars like Derrida and Foucault, who is the world's most cited scholar, more than Darwin, aligned themselves with Marxism. Almost all postmodernists were Marxists to begin with, radically leftist. Marxism took a significant hit on the moral side in the 1970s, partly due to Solzhenitsyn exposing the catastrophes of the Stalinist system. The French postmodernists then transformed Marxism into a multi-dimensional power game. For Marx, the axis of oppression was economic, but the new Marxist types multiplied this axis to include virtually every dimension of comparison, such as race, ethnicity, sex, height, looks, and ability, making each an axis of oppression. This transformed Marxism into a metastasized Marxism.

In principle, white people are considered at the top of the oppression hierarchy, making them the only ones who can be oppressors. This narrative is empirically preposterous because white people are not necessarily at the top of the economic hierarchy in the United States. For example, Indian Americans, Asians, Nigerians, black women, and Jews do disproportionately well in the American economy. The reason radicals insist that racism is only a white problem is due to the Marxism that has crept into the narrative.

The victim hierarchy on the left is a significant issue. White people are supposedly at the top of the heap, but Asians and African immigrants often perform better economically. This fact destroys the leftist narrative because, according to their logic, black immigrants should be worse off due to their dual status as black and immigrants. However, groups that do well in this country often have higher marriage and lower divorce rates. Asians and African immigrants tend to get married and stay married, while white people have higher divorce rates and increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates, leading to less success compared to these other groups. There are likely many factors that explain why these various groups perform well, but the correlation with stable family structures is evident.

=> 00:22:35

Stable marriages and strong family units are key to economic success across different cultural groups.

The notion that certain groups are supposedly oppressed is not accurate. This can be easily explained by examining the marriage and divorce rates among different groups that perform well in this country. For instance, Asians do well and they also tend to get married and stay married. Similarly, African immigrants also get married and stay married. In contrast, white people have higher divorce rates and increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates, which correlates with their decreasing success compared to other groups. There are likely many factors that contribute to the success of these groups, but marriage stability appears to be a significant one.

If there's an exception to this trend, it is not readily apparent. For example, is there a demographic group with high divorce rates and high out-of-wedlock birth rates that also performs well economically? None come to mind. An interesting case is that of Asians: first-generation Asians do well in the United States, and their children perform even better than the average American. However, by the third generation, their performance declines to the average American level. This suggests a cultural component, possibly driven by the desperation and hard work ethic instilled by immigrant parents who took significant risks to immigrate.

The success of immigrant groups may be driven by a kind of desperation and a strong work ethic, which is less prevalent in the broader American culture. Conscientiousness, a key personality trait predicting long-term success, involves diligence, orderliness, and industriousness. Conscientious people are good at delaying immediate gratification and planning for the long term, often sacrificing their own needs for the good of others. This trait is crucial in making marriages work and raising children, as it requires prioritizing the family over individual short-term needs.

In the black community, especially in inner cities, the rates of fatherless, out-of-wedlock births are alarmingly high, around 70-80%. Such high numbers make it challenging to maintain a functioning community or society.

In addition, there is nearly $1 trillion of infrastructure and pandemic funds yet to be spent. The current administration is pushing hard to spend these funds in their remaining months, which could lead to another inflation surge similar to what was experienced during the pandemic. However, there is a way to hedge against inflation: a gold IRA from Birch Gold Group. This can protect your savings in uncertain times. To learn more about protecting your IRA or 401K, you can get a free info kit on gold by texting the word "Jordan" to 989898.

=> 00:26:36

Fatherlessness is a catastrophe with profound biological and social impacts, leading to early puberty in girls and lower life expectancy for children.

Community or a functioning society struggles when the numbers are that high. Did you know there's nearly $1 trillion of infrastructure and pandemic funds yet to be spent? That's right, there's a whole heap of money that the lame duck Administration is pushing hard to spend in their last few months. If the president is able to push these funds out, we can see another prolonged inflation surge just like we saw during COVID. I'm sure you remember the terrible effects that high prices had on most Americans.

But there is hope. A surging price can be beaten. A gold IRA from Birch Gold Group is the ultimate inflation hedge for your savings in uncertain times. To see how to protect your IRA or 401K, get your free info kit on gold by texting the word Jordan to 98 9898. And there's more good news. Due to enormous demand, Birch Gold is offering the 24 Karat gold-plated truth bomb on qualifying purchases for one more month. But you need to text Jordan to 9898 98 to claim your eligibility before September 30th. Don't wait for the president's spending spree to tank the dollar further. Protect your financial future with gold. Text Jordan to the number 98898 to claim your eligibility and make your purchase before September 30th. That's Jordan to 9989 today.

Fatherlessness is a catastrophe. We don't know the relationship between fatherlessness and conscientiousness, and that's a study that should clearly be done. However, we do know, probably more accurately than anything else in the developmental psychological literature, that fatherlessness is a catastrophe. Fatherless kids do abysmally well. Here's an example: fatherless girls undergo puberty on average more than one year earlier. Now, that's a walloping biological effect and an early one. The life expectancy of fatherless children is lower as well, and that's because they undergo chromosomal damage due to stress.

So, right at the biological level, there are massive consequences of fatherlessness. Having a father who sticks around provides an example of long-term, other-focused commitment across all the ups and downs of life. If you have a father who hangs in there, if your parents are honest, you see them contending with each other, wrestling with each other, and fighting with each other as they try to sort out the complex problems of life. There are lots of tragedies that a married couple goes through, lots of difficulties, and the example of committed monogamy shows people that it's possible to make a voluntary bond, a contract, or a covenant that extends across decades regardless of the difficulties that life throws your way.

You commented on the accelerating rates of fatherlessness in the black community, and that is a complete bloody catastrophe. Here's an explanation for it: imagine a pyramidal structure that represents economic position in the patriarchy. Now, imagine that you stress the system by defining the family unit as the fundamental basis of oppression and that all other family arrangements are fine, and that it's okay to love whoever you want for as long as you want or for as short as you want, like the next hour, and that's perfectly acceptable. Then you throw that into the culture, which is what we did in the early 1960s.

You might ask, who is that going to destabilize first? The answer is crystal clear: the lower you are on the socioeconomic ladder, the more catastrophic the results of a sociological intervention like that are likely to be. The black community tended to be at the lower end of the pyramidal distribution, so that radical sociological change that emerged in the 1960s affected them first. Black families started to fall apart in the 60s, and that's been accelerating ever since until we get the numbers that you are pointing to.

However, Hispanics and Caucasians are not far behind. There has been a decline in marital stability in the white and Hispanic communities since the 60s. If you match the curves, Hispanics and whites are about 10 to 15 years behind the black community. That cataclysmic collapse is starting to spread through our entire culture; it's just that the black population happens to be at the forefront of it. We know perfectly well that fatherlessness, apart from the biological effects like early puberty for girls, has severe consequences.

=> 00:30:54

The collapse of family structures since the 60s is a cultural catastrophe that's spreading beyond the black community.

In the 1960s, black families started to fall apart, and this trend has been accelerating ever since, leading to the concerning numbers we see today. However, it is important to note that Hispanics and Caucasians are not far behind. There has been a decline in marital stability in both the white and Hispanic communities since the 60s. If you compare the trends, Hispanics and whites are about 10 to 15 years behind the black community. This cataclysmic collapse is spreading through our entire culture, with the black population at the forefront.

Fatherlessness has significant implications beyond the biological effects, such as early puberty for girls. Girls may hit puberty earlier if they don't have a father around, potentially making them sexually attractive sooner so that a man shows up. This is problematic because it can lead to girls entering sexual relationships while still psychologically immature. Fatherless boys, on the other hand, are much more likely to end up in prison, drop out of school, struggle to attain gainful employment, and be unreliable marital partners. This creates a cascading effect that is a complete catastrophe.

Even conservatives have been misguided on this issue. For instance, a conservative leader recently suggested that as long as two people love each other, it’s sufficient. However, love without commitment is not enough. What does love mean in this context? Does it mean love for tonight, sexual desire, or a commitment for decades through better or worse? There needs to be a model for love that goes beyond just emotional attachment.

A stable, committed, long-term, child-centered, heterosexual, monogamous relationship is essential for the long-term viability of children. Alternative family structures, such as those involving multiple partners or same-sex couples, do not replicate well across society. Two men, for example, have a very difficult time reproducing. The fatherless catastrophe is a critical issue that people are reluctant to highlight due to fears of being labeled prejudiced or judgmental. However, there is no other model for the long-term viability of children than the traditional family structure.

The reluctance to discuss this issue means that no real cultural improvements can be made. Addressing fatherlessness is the first issue that must be tackled to solve other downstream problems. People avoid this conversation because it is not politically correct and because many who should be discussing it are part of the problem themselves, having abandoned their own children and marriages.

The common argument from the left is that it is enough for two people to love each other. This could be true if we define love the right way. According to Thomas Aquinas, love is to will the good of the other. In a religious context, to love someone means to prioritize their well-being and commit to their good.

=> 00:34:49

True love means willing the good of the other, not just fleeting emotions.

Many people have abandoned their kids and marriages, and they don't want to indict themselves. When asked if it is enough for two people to love each other, the common response from the left is that it is. However, this is only true if we define love the right way. If we all had the right conception of love, it could be as simple as that. Thomas Aquinas said, love is to will the good of the other. In a religious context, to love someone is to help them get to heaven. As a parent, my job is to help my children get to heaven. If we define love this way, it can be the guiding principle of life, rarely steering you wrong. However, people often see love as an emotional thing, which can be problematic.

In the biological world, there are two reproductive strategies: low investment and high investment. Low investment strategies characterize many animals like mosquitoes and fish, where there is sex without commitment and many offspring. For example, a mosquito doesn't invest in any of its children; it fertilizes many eggs, and almost all of them die, with just enough surviving to propagate the species. This is a low investment, high production strategy. On the other end, you have animals that reproduce slowly and invest a lot in their offspring. Human beings are the most extreme example of this strategy, making a multi-generational investment in their children. This investment spans decades, with parents and grandparents playing crucial roles.

Within human beings, there are those who tilt more towards a short-term investment strategy and those who tilt more towards a long-term investment strategy. The short-term investors are the hedonists, pursuing one-night stands and believing that love is free and every form of sexual expression is acceptable. This philosophy became more viable in the 1960s, partly because birth control made it more practical.

=> 00:39:08

Short-term mating strategies are linked to psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors, leading to a culture of self-centered hedonism and societal decline.

Decades ago, we became a high investment species. Now, imagine applying this logic within human beings, where some tilt towards a short-term investment strategy and others towards a long-term investment strategy. The short-term investors, often hedonists, pursue one-night stands, believe in free love, and accept every form of sexual expression. This philosophy gained traction in the 1960s, partly due to the advent of birth control, which made it more viable practically.

When identifying men with short-term mating strategies versus high investment ones, characterological differences become apparent. The short-term oriented men are often psychopathic, narcissistic, and sadistic. For women, pursuing men with these traits for casual sex can lead to entanglements with these dark tetrad types. Women are less likely to adopt a short-term mating strategy because sex is more costly for them, both emotionally and in terms of potential misunderstandings about genuine emotional commitment. Women who do adopt this strategy tend to be more psychopathological.

The breakdown of the family facilitates short-term mating strategies, leading to the rise of psychopathic narcissists. As a clinician, I observe this manifesting in movements like the hedonistic Pride movement, where the mantra is to have sex with whoever, whenever, under any conditions. This movement is driven by psychopathic narcissists who never matured, akin to turning the culture over to the worst-behaved two-year-olds. This radical failure to mature has been identified in literature over the last four or five years, linking psychopathic narcissists to short-term mating strategies.

A recent viral clip on Twitter featured a self-professed queer person, who is HIV positive, arguing against the need to disclose his status to sexual partners because it makes him uncomfortable. This reflects the LGBT activist side's celebration of the self and the pursuit of desires at any cost. Some activists even argue for the right to pass along HIV, disregarding others' well-being.

This hedonistic culture not only leads to fatherless homes but also contributes to declining populations. Many in my generation, raised by self-centered and miserable parents from broken homes, associate parenthood with abject misery. Consequently, they give up on having kids, perpetuating a cycle of self-centeredness and societal decline.

=> 00:43:30

Growing up in broken homes leads many to associate parenthood with misery, causing them to avoid having kids and relationships altogether.

The discussion touches on several significant issues, starting with the controversial notion that one should be able to pass along HIV if they want to. This leads to a broader conversation about the catastrophic consequences of broken homes, including the decline in population. The speaker reflects on how many in their generation were raised by self-centered or miserable parents, leading them to associate parenthood with misery and subsequently swear off having children entirely. This phenomenon is evident in forums like Reddit's "regretful parents," where parents openly express regret and even hatred towards their children, which can have a profound impact on those children's views on parenthood.

The conversation then shifts to the proclivity of young people not to date and have relationships. Many young women, having never seen a positive male role model, are drawn to the radical leftist view that the patriarchy is oppressive. The speaker references Rob Henderson's book, noting how Henderson, who grew up in the foster care system, observed that many working-class children never encounter men who can commit to anything. This lack of positive masculinity models leads to a cascading spiral of failure in communities, where short-term emotional gratification takes precedence over long-term planning and socialization.

An example is given from the speaker's own experience during lectures, where their wife has taken on the role of introducing them and handling Q&A sessions. This arrangement evolved as they toured, with various individuals, including Dave Rubin, Michaela Peterson, and Douglas Murray, initially opening for the speaker. Eventually, the speaker's wife took over these duties, highlighting a collaborative and supportive dynamic in their professional endeavors.

=> 00:47:43

People are amazed to see a married couple working together productively and peacefully on stage, highlighting the deep need for genuine cooperation and role models in relationships.

When I go do my lectures, my wife does the introduction and then she handles the Q&A. We didn't exactly plan that. As we've been touring around, I've had different people open for me. Dave Rubin did for a while, my daughter Michaela did for a while, and I've had various special guests like Douglas Murray. At one point, we were just doing some advertising for this essay product that my son is working on and for the Peterson Academy, our online university. Michaela, when she was introducing me, was talking about those ventures. Then she decided to pursue her own things, so I asked my wife if she would do the intros, and she agreed. That's how that came about, and then she did the Q&As, which branched into her pursuing her own description of my rules at the beginning of the show.

People were very pleased to have her on stage with me. We were watching YouTube comments, and we came to understand that a large proportion of the audience had never seen a man and a woman, like a married couple, sit down together and actually do something productive, useful, and peaceful voluntarily. When the audience asks questions for the Q&A, those are submitted electronically. Tammy goes through them to see which ones are upvoted and to string together a coherent set of questions in a conversation. She asks me the questions and listens to the answers actively, sometimes probing further. We were stunned to find how much of a relief that was for people just to see that it was possible. It's catastrophic because it shows the depth of misery that characterizes so many people's lives, as they are relieved to see genuine cooperation between a committed man and woman. That's really sad.

A lot of these girls who are susceptible to the blandishments of the left, it's not surprising when you look at their autobiographical background. For boys, it's probably even more disastrous. Girls who grow up without a male role model don't know what to expect from men, how to interact with men, and they don't trust men. For boys, it means they don't know how to be what they are. As a father of four boys, two of whom are still babies and two a bit older, you notice that they are always watching you to figure out how they are supposed to be in the world and how to act. Boys have all this energy and desire to run out into the woods every moment of the day. They don't want to be inside or contained at all. They look to their father as an example of how to harness that energy.

It's quite a bit of pressure because if I give them a bad example, I've set them up for failure. When you see boys in the inner city joining gangs and doing dangerous things, it's not just in the inner city. Teenage boys can be known to do absurdly dangerous, almost suicidal things, even if they are not actually suicidal. There's a masculine urge for risk-taking.

=> 00:51:48

Fathers play a crucial role in teaching boys how to take healthy risks.

Every single moment of the day, they don't even want to be inside the house; they don't want to be contained at all. They have all of this energy, and they're looking at me as an example of how to harness that. What do you do with that? It's quite a bit of pressure because I know that if I give them a bad example, then I've set them up for failure. A big part of it is when you see these boys in the inner city that join gangs and do dangerous things, it's not just in the inner city. Teenage boys can be known to do things that are absurdly dangerous, almost suicidal, even if they are not actually suicidal. I think it's because there's this masculine urge for risk-taking. One of the most important roles of a father is to show a boy how to take risks in a healthy way. What are healthy risks to take? If you don't have a father to show you how to do that, then you end up with a teenage boy who's drunk and driving 105 miles an hour on a back road somewhere because that's his way of taking a risk. He didn't have a father to show him more constructive ways of taking risks.

A couple of things on that: boys are definitely more difficult to socialize than girls; there's no doubt about that. I'll say the tables will turn when your daughters become teenagers, so be prepared for that because they experience a whole new form of exposure to risk then. Boys are less agreeable than girls and are more risk-taking and exploratory. For example, men and women differ within the dimension of extraversion. Men are more assertive, and women are more enthusiastic. There are pretty reliable sex differences in temperament, most of them seem biologically grounded. You can distinguish between men and women with 75% accuracy on the basis of personality scales alone. If you include interests, because women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things on average, you can increase that diagnostic ability. That's independent of any physiological signs. Just if you knew someone's personality and their interests, you can very reliably categorize them as men or women. There's no evidence whatsoever that that's cultural, by the way, because those differences get bigger in more egalitarian societies. This is very well known by psychologists, even if they're afraid to talk about it, which they are. So, it is harder to socialize boys, and the way we socialize them to take risks fundamentally, as far as I'm concerned, is by encouraging them to take responsibility. It's a time frame issue again; you want your boys to be able to carry a maximum load, and there's adventure in that, but that has to be a socialized adventure.

Let's delve into that a little bit. How long have you been married? Almost 13 years. Why do you like being married? Well, why not? Look, you're a famous guy, and you have a lot of money, so in principle, you could have women at your disposal if you wanted to go that route. That's very common for celebrities. So, I could say to you, "Why not have your cake and eat it too?" You could keep up the appearance of your marriage but be having plenty of action on the side. I'm presuming you're not doing that, and if the opportunity is there, which it is now, because many men are going to be monogamous or involuntarily celibate because they don't have the opportunity.

=> 00:55:54

Being married brings a unique kind of love and meaning that can't be found elsewhere.

Let's delve into that a little bit. How long have you been married?

Almost 13 years.

Okay, why do you like being married?

Oh wow, well why not? Just look, you're a famous guy and you have a lot of money, and so in principle, you could have women at your disposal if you wanted to go that route. That's very, very common for celebrities. So, I could say to you, why not have your cake and eat it too? You could keep up the appearance of your marriage but have plenty of action on the side. I'm presuming you're not doing that, and if the opportunity is there—which it is now because many men are either monogamous or involuntarily celibate because they don't have the opportunity—there's no morality in that. But now you're in a position where you could pretty much do whatever you wanted on the sexual front. So, why are you committed to your marriage? What's in it for you?

Well, I would say it's interesting because you could say I have to say this if I'm speaking publicly, but it also happens to be true that there is nothing about the scenario you just described that I find even remotely appealing. The idea of being unfaithful to my wife is a horror show when I think about it. Every aspect of that is a horror show. Nothing about it is even remotely tempting.

Why is it a horror show when you think about it?

Because everything you're bringing into your life is terrible. You're bringing lies, deception, and betrayal into your life. I also happen to love my wife very much, and as we just talked about, loving is willing the good of the other. That is very much not willing what is good for her or my family. Every part of it is unappealing. Even if I were to imagine having never been married and being single right now, at least you don't have the betrayal and all of that, but that also is incredibly unappealing. I quite literally thank God every day that I'm married. I look at people who aren't and feel sorry for them, especially men. As you pointed out, there are men who want to be married but just don't have the opportunity, and I feel an immense amount of sympathy for them. I would hate to be in their position. I don't want to lay it on them even thicker if they're watching right now, but I feel for them. I'm incredibly happy to be married all the time.

The reason is it's only hard to answer the question because the reasons are really infinite in a lot of ways. It brings meaning into my life every day that wouldn't be there without it. It brings purpose. There are people in my life who I can love in a way that, if they weren't there, I just wouldn't. You could have friends that you love, you love your siblings and your parents, but especially having experienced it now, I know that it's just a different kind of love that I have for my own kids and my own wife. If I didn't have them, I wouldn't have any opportunity for that kind of love either to give or to receive. As I said, to me, not having that is nothing but pure horror. I see no advantage in it.

Right, so you outlined two dimensions there. You said that if you took the short-term mating strategy route, that would introduce all sorts of deception, lies, betrayal, and brokenness into your family. That's on the hell side. When I used to counsel people who were thinking about having an affair, one of the things I would do with them was think it through. So, what's your fantasy here? You found someone new, you're having fun with them, and you find them very attractive, but they don't have to bear any responsibility for your continued life together. They get all the fun, and your wife, who you're thinking about cheating on, gets all the responsibility and the burden. Now you have this imaginary person that you do nothing with but play with, and that's a person who's also willing to break up a marriage. So, that's the sort of person you've tangled yourself up in, and what, you're just going to keep this secret? You're going to lie constantly now about everything for the rest of your life while you betray your wife, and you're going to pretend that there's something positive in that for you?

=> 01:00:05

True happiness comes from long-term commitment and the deep connections it brings.

What's your fantasy here? I see, so you found someone new and you're having fun with them. You find them very attractive, but they don't have to bear any of the responsibility for your continued life together. They get all the fun, and your wife, who you're thinking about cheating on, gets all the responsibility and the burden. Now, you have this imaginary person that you do nothing with but play with, and that's a person who's also willing to break up a marriage. So, that's the sort of person that you've tangled yourself up in. Are you just going to keep this secret? Are you going to lie constantly now about everything for the rest of your life while you betray your wife? Are you going to pretend that there's something positive in that for you, your wife, and your children? That's the game you're going to play. Often, not always, but often, when people start to think it through, they change their mind.

Positive Side of Commitment: When I worked my first job as a professor at Harvard, my wife and I moved down to Boston, and we had our second child there. Tammy stayed home with the kids for a variety of reasons, one of which was that she didn't have a green card. There were other reasons too, because she wanted to be with the kids. All I did was work and spend time with my family. At that point in my life, it was necessary to cut out everything that was extraneous if I was going to be successful at those two things. There wasn't anything I ever found more enjoyable than spending time with my kids and my wife. It was great. You have a quality of love from your children that you will not get anywhere else in your life, period. The same is true if you are actually in a committed relationship with someone.

Meaning in Life: What I've been trying to lecture to young people around the world is that you find the meaning in your life through adopting long-term responsibility. Your kids are the only people you'll ever meet in your life who want more than anything else to have a good relationship with you. That's what they offer you, and that's such a gift. We have a society that's searching for meaning. Having a committed relationship with someone for 60 years, which is what you'll have with your kids if you're fortunate, is actually quite meaningful. Then you have grandkids too, and that's another source of bountiful provision of stability, responsibility, and love.

Conservatives and Responsibility: Conservatives have done a very bad job of selling this to young people because they always take the dutiful side and portray it as an obligation and not an opportunity, and that's just ridiculous. Even on the sexual side, the people who have the most sex are religious people in long-term committed monogamous relationships, at least the heterosexual people who have the most sex. That's pretty interesting; who would have guessed that? You might also contemplate for a moment the difference between sex with love and sex without love. Sex without love produces a fair bit of post-coital regret on both the man and the woman's side. That's a real symptom of what the hell is going on, which is something like mutual short-term exploitation and then the realization of that. Sex with love is a whole different enterprise; they're not even in the same universe. That's not something people speak about very much, but they should.

Happiness and Relationships: I think you're right. As a conservative commentator who talks about these issues all the time, we have not done an entirely sufficient job of making this point. Probably part of it is not highlighting the positives enough. When it comes down to it, it's an issue of happiness. It's probably true, with very rare exceptions, that you cannot be truly happy alone. Nobody can be truly happy entirely alone. Most of us, unless you're on a desert island somewhere—and if you were, you would go insane very quickly from being that isolated—are not completely alone.

=> 01:04:08

True happiness comes from sharing life with others, not from being alone.

I have not done an entirely sufficient job of making this point, and probably part of it is not highlighting the positives enough. When it comes down to it, isn't it an issue of happiness? I think it's probably true, with very rare exceptions, that you cannot be truly happy alone. Nobody can be truly happy entirely alone. Most of us are not on a desert island, but if you were, you would go insane very quickly due to the isolation.

The closer you are to being alone, the more unhappy you will be. The farthest you can get from being alone is to have a spouse and children. Even then, there's a certain element of aloneness because we are human beings with our own minds. There's always going to be a certain feeling of isolation, no matter how many people you surround yourself with. However, having a spouse and children provides the opportunity for the greatest happiness available to human beings. This opportunity is not automatic; you have to take advantage of it.

Consider the movie "Into the Wild" about Chris McCandless, who left everything behind, burned his credit cards, license, and social security card, and went off into the Alaskan wilderness by himself. He ended up eating a poison berry accidentally and died alone in the wilderness. Before he died, he wrote in the margins of his notebook, "Happiness isn't real unless it's shared." He learned this lesson the hardest way possible. There is no happiness unless you're sharing it.

I travel a lot for my job, as I know you do. People often say to me, "It must be nice to travel and see the world, to get a break from the wife and kids." The truth is, when I'm traveling, I'm going to do a job. Even if I'm in a really cool place, I don't do a lot of sightseeing. On the few occasions when I do something fun on my own, it's not that fun because I wish I had my kids and wife there to see it. Without them, the experience lacks a certain quality.

Our whole culture, particularly emphasized on the Christian side, is predicated on the idea of sacrifice. The crucifixion at the center of our culture is a sacrificial symbol. You find meaning in your life through the sacrifice of your solitude and narrow self to the future and the broader community. This is where we find not only our happiness but also our hope for the future, enthusiasm, and courage. We also find our respite from anxiety. There's no difference between being self-conscious and being anxious; they are statistically indistinguishable. The more you think about yourself, the more miserable you are.

Human beings are deeply social. We can punish psychopathic predators by putting them in isolation, which highlights how social people are. Even the worst, most predatory people, the repeat violent offenders who can't regulate themselves at all, are affected by isolation.

=> 01:08:01

True happiness and meaning come from long-term commitment and responsibility to others.

The sacrifice of your solitude and your narrow self to the future and to the broader community is where we find not only our happiness map, which you pointed to, but also our hope for the future, our enthusiasm, and our courage. We also find our respite from anxiety. There's no difference between being self-conscious and being anxious; they are statistically indistinguishable from one another. The more you think about yourself, the more miserable you are. Human beings are so deeply social that we can punish psychopathic predators by putting them in isolation. Just think about what that means for how social people are. You can take the worst people, the most predatory people, the repeat violent offenders who can't regulate themselves at all, who act like they hate everyone and do nothing but prey, and if you put them in solitary, they find that torturous. That's how social human beings are.

In your observation that you only find realistic meaning in communal experience, I feel the same way when I'm traveling. I take my wife along, and we often have family members and friends along, which makes a huge difference. I'm just not that interested in having fun without my wife because it's just not that fun. I'm not searching for immediate gratification; it's shallow. We have a crisis of meaning in our society because people don't understand the relationship between responsibility, like long-term committed responsibility, and meaning. That's where all of it is to be found. As you get older, this becomes even more apparent. I can't imagine what my life would be like now if I didn't have my kids, my grandkids, and my wife. What would I be doing? Something trivial and pointless to while away the time? It's so dull and dry; there's no depth in it at all.

Conservatives have done a terrible job of showing young people that commitment and meaning are the same thing. It's interesting to watch this because I've noticed when I lecture that whenever I draw a relationship between responsibility and meaning, the audience always goes dead silent because no one's made that case, least of all the conservatives who are always on about duty. You did a much better job today than the typical conservative in highlighting what you find so spectacularly positive about having a family. It also does a lot for your genuine regard for yourself because if you can view yourself as somebody who's reliable and committed in the face of all of life's catastrophes and that you can keep your word across time, then you're not some miserable, cringing milk sop of a thing that's blowing in the wind and crushed by every one of life's minor tragedies. You're trying to live out a pattern of someone who can take a fair bit of battering and still prevail and be a model of that sort to your kids, which they look to you for. Part of the reason your boys torture you and push you is to find out what you're made of; your wife does the same thing. Maybe you can find out that you're made of more than you think if you are willing to put a little committed effort into the situation.

I agree with what you said at the beginning of the conversation that you don't really grow up until you get married and have kids. I certainly see that in my own life. I got married when I was 25 and had my first set of twins when I was 26. I look at my life up to the age of 25, and I see all of that as basically childhood. I look at myself at 22, and it's like I might as well have been 12 in a lot of ways because, for me, adulthood started once I was actually a husband and then a father. In the culture, we're always told that having a family is going to prevent you from being financially successful because it's an extra financial burden. While it is true that there is more of a financial burden, it hasn't been my experience that it prevents success. In fact, my own career didn't really take off until the moment when I had kids. There's almost like a starting point right there, and I could draw a line going up from that moment. Part of the reason for all of that is that I really started to take myself a lot more seriously when I was a husband and a father.

=> 01:12:13

Taking on family responsibilities pushed me to mature and take my life seriously, leading to greater success and fulfillment.

In our culture, we are often told that having a family will prevent us from being financially successful because it is an extra financial burden. While it is true that having a family can be a financial burden, it hasn't been my experience that it prevents success. In fact, my own career didn't really take off until the moment I had kids. I could almost draw a line going up from that moment, marking it as a starting point for my success.

Part of the reason for this is that I started to take myself a lot more seriously when I became a husband and a father. I had the responsibility to care for my family, and I began to see myself as a grown man in the world. Taking myself more seriously was crucial for my success. Many young men don't see themselves as serious people, and as a consequence, the world doesn't see them that way either. You're probably not a serious person until it's about more than just you. This means you don't bring a serious intent to your pursuits.

The developmental literature is clear on this: most young men are quite hedonistic with their consumption of alcohol and other substances. People drink to party and have a good time, engaging in hedonistic stupidity. Substances like alcohol are physiologically rewarding because they activate the dopaminergic systems, the same systems activated when pursuing a worthwhile goal. The real question is why not just drink and use substances all the time? The answer usually comes when people take on responsibility, realizing that it's more worthwhile. Young men start to take themselves seriously and work hard, finding motivation in the obligations of a family. It's not a burden but an opportunity to mature and show that you are capable of more than you thought.

For me, the consequence of taking on additional responsibility has been entirely positive. I can trace all my success—career-wise, financially, and spiritually—to starting a family. Everything I do matters because it's not just for me. When I moved out at 20 and got married at 25, there were five years of living on my own. During that time, there was an opportunity for partying and hedonistic activities, but it was a very miserable time. I was not happy because, although I had a job and was trying to advance in my career, I would come home to an empty apartment. It didn't matter to anyone else whether I succeeded or not.

=> 01:16:19

Living alone and focusing only on yourself can lead to misery; true happiness comes from taking on responsibilities and being of service to others.

I moved out when I was 20 and got married when I was 25, so there were almost exactly five years in between when I was living on my own but was single and not married. During that time, there was an opportunity for a lot of partying and other activities, but I mainly remember it as a very miserable period. I was not happy. I had a job and was trying to advance in my career, but coming home to an empty apartment felt burdensome. It didn't seem to matter to anyone else whether I succeeded or not, and I found that to be quite burdensome. Having a family actually lifts that burden because coming home to people who care about you makes a significant difference.

The point seems to be in the adoption of maximal responsibility. This concept is echoed in many of our great adventure stories. The hero is always the person who takes on maximal responsibility, like Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings," who takes on the immense task of destroying the ring of power. These stories resonate because they involve characters who contend with significant burdens and responsibilities.

However, I believe it is possible to have a happy and successful life without getting married or having kids. Some people are called to forgo that path, but they must find another outlet for paternal service. Most men will find this through having kids, and if they can't have kids, through adoption. A small minority might be called to a different kind of paternal service, such as becoming a priest or a monk. These roles still involve a form of fatherhood, albeit in a spiritual sense, and can lead to a joyful life.

The key point is that you can't discard the idea of being in service to others entirely. If your mentality is to avoid any form of responsibility or service and just focus on yourself and having fun, there's no way to achieve true happiness. This pursuit of fleeting moments of pleasure leads to the cataclysmic abyss of hedonism, where those moments become increasingly rare and desperate.

I talked to Jocko Willink, who wanted to be a Mayhem Distributing soldier from a very young age. He is an example of someone who found his calling early and pursued it with dedication. Many boys, about 5%, exhibit challenging behaviors like kicking, hitting, biting, and stealing at the age of two, but most are socialized by the age of four. This highlights the importance of finding a meaningful path and taking on responsibilities, whether through family, career, or other forms of service.

=> 01:20:20

Pursuing fleeting moments of hedonism only makes them rarer; true fulfillment comes from meaningful mentorship and discipline.

In the fleeting moments that you talk about, people get more and more desperate to pursue those fleeting moments too. That's the cataclysmic abyss of Hedonism because those moments will also get more and more rare the more you pursue them. I talked to Jocko Willink, who wanted to be a Mayhem Distributing soldier from the time he was about three, and you can tell that just by looking at him because he's such a monster. I imagine he was a boy that was quite difficult to socialize. There are lots of boys who are like that; about 5% of boys kick, hit, bite, and steal at the age of two, which is very few girls by the way. Most of those boys are socialized by the age of four, and most people who are miserable with their kids have no idea how to discipline them. It's like they are not living with three kids; they are living with three unhoused, stupid attack dogs. It's no wonder they are miserable because they are too fragmented, clueless, poorly educated, and undisciplined to understand what it means to bring their children under some sort of acceptable social order. That's a complete catastrophe. Disregulated social relationships can make your life hell, but that doesn't mean, as you pointed out, that it's implicitly the case. You don't have to let your children run roughshod over you. It doesn't take that much discipline for a grown man to bring a three-year-old into alignment. If you can't, then you're fundamentally a coward or you've had very bad models.

In any case, Jocko, when he went off to be the Special Forces character that he developed into, discovered very quickly that he really liked mentoring. That was way better than just living for the sake of adventurous mayhem. That was a profound realization on his part. His monstrous Viking life easily could have led him down a criminal pathway because of his aggressive temperament. However, he found that there was nothing better than to mentor young men and adopt that paternal role. There was a deep source of meaning in that. That's the spirit of the patriarch celebrated in the biblical stories. It's part of the manifestation of the spirit of the God of Isaiah and Abraham, that long-term paternal focus that's committed and the opposite of idiot hedonism and pride, which is celebrated in our society.

So, Matt, let's take a turn to your movie. Do you want to walk people through that a bit? I saw it, by the way, and it looks to me like you'll have the same kind of radical success with it that you did with What is a Woman. You've got this everyman quality about you. I think it's true, by the way. There is some of that about you, but you also do a good job of being a naive investigator into the crazy world of ideological possession. Do you want to walk us through the movie a little bit?

Sure. We decided, of course, we had What is a Woman, and it was very successful for us. Going back two years ago, we were thinking about what topic we wanted to tackle next and how to tackle it. For me, it was very clear I wanted to get into race. We talked about it; we did the movie, and we investigated gender broadly speaking. Race is the other big one culturally, so I knew I wanted to investigate that. The question was how to approach it. With What is a Woman, the strategy is right there in the title—just this one basic question that the whole thing hinges on. With race, it's not quite like that. There are a lot of questions, not just one basic one. It's a different beast in a lot of ways. We also didn't want to repeat just what we did with What is a Woman but with race. This time, we thought it would be interesting to take a different approach and start as the clueless, naive investigator asking questions. The only difference here is that whereas with What is a Woman, I was kind of a blank slate the whole way through, just asking questions without having any real position on it.

=> 01:24:25

The strategy was to ask questions and believe whatever answers were given, letting those answers guide the investigation.

The strategy is right there in the title, hinging on one basic question. However, with race, it's not quite the same; there isn't one basic question but rather many. It's a different beast in many ways. We didn't want to repeat the approach of "What is a Woman?" but with race. This time, we thought it would be interesting to take a different approach: starting as the clueless, naive investigator asking questions.

The only difference here is that, whereas with "What is a Woman?" I was a blank slate throughout, just asking questions without any real position until the very end, in this one, we thought, "What if I start by asking questions and, rather than remaining a blank slate and skeptical, I just believe whatever I'm told?" They give me an answer, I accept it, and let that answer lead me to the next place. This is the strategy we took, and it kind of takes us on a journey. We approached filming this way, with a broad outline of where we wanted to go and end up, but without scripting it out because we didn't know exactly what people would say or how it would go. Filming took over a year because we let the story guide us, going down the rabbit hole that way.

In the process, I believed what these anti-racist DEI people were telling me, adopting their views and trying to put them into practice on screen so that people could see it. This was the goal: not just to ask about it but to take what they say and put it into practice. This approach is perhaps even more direct in scrutinizing these ideas than we did in "What is a Woman?"

You got DEI certified. A couple of comments: you adopt a persona with a man bun. If you ever do this again, you need to learn to uptalk at the end of your sentences, making every sentence sound like a question. Your voice gives you away because you have a flat, authoritative voice that makes declarative statements without questions. DEI types often end every sentence with uptalk, a form of validation seeking. Your authoritative voice belies your persona as a DEI man bun specialist, so you might want to consider this when trying to pass as one of the people you're investigating.

You got DEI certification, so I'm wondering if that might be handy for you to re-educate me. Since I seem destined to be re-educated by DEI specialists, what was that training like? It was very easy, it turns out. Literally anyone can get DEI certified because there's no official process. It's not like becoming a certified plumber or electrician; it's not a real profession. Anyone can get certified and declare themselves an expert.

How long did it take you to get certified? The actual process took about 30 minutes. So, I could get DEI certified and present that to the Ontario College of Psychologists as evidence of my successful re-education? You absolutely could and should. I could give you the website we used to get our certification. It opens up a lot of doors, we found. Even aside from the certification, that's one of the meta jokes in the movie: I'm wearing a costume, but it's not that convincing. It's really just a man bun; I didn't even shave my beard.

=> 01:28:25

People in ideological bubbles are often easily fooled because they're never challenged on their beliefs.

Dei certified and then I could present that to the Ontario College of psychologists as evidence for my successful re-education. You absolutely could and should. I mean, I could give you—I don't have the website in front of me—there's a certain website we went to get our certification, and I'd be happy to pass it along to you. I think you absolutely should do that. It opens up a lot of doors, we found. Even aside from the certification, it's really because you're right, that's kind of one of the meta jokes in the movie. I'm like wearing a costume, but it's not that convincing. It's really just a man bun; I don't even shave my beard.

In the process of making the film, we thought it would be very difficult to get in the room with these people if all I'm wearing is a wig because I do have a pretty distinct look and sound. The idea was floated that maybe I shave the beard, which would be a pretty drastic change of my look, but that was a no-go for me. I'm not going to do that; there are some things I'm just not willing to do. However, what we found is that it actually didn't matter because even the wig probably didn't matter that much. All they want to know is that you repeat certain buzzwords and phrases. If you repeat them back to these people, they will accept you as part of the tribe and they're not going to be very skeptical about it.

It was the same thing when we were making What is a Woman. We got in the room with a lot of these types in the gender space, and there was no disguise at all in that case. The way we did it was just by using the key words. If they think that you are part of the tribe, then they drop all their defenses and will sit in the room with you. I think part of the reason why it was so easy—though it may not be so easy for anyone who tries to do it again now after we made both these movies—was because all of these people live in a bubble. They live in a world where they're never challenged on their beliefs and are never even around anyone who would disagree with them. For them, the idea that they might be interviewed by someone who fundamentally disagrees with them was really just unthinkable. They never even considered the possibility because they're never even around those kinds of people. We really kind of punctured that bubble in making the film.

The most surprising thing to me—and I don't want to be speaking out of turn here—was the fact that you got to talk to Robin DiAngelo. Robin DiAngelo famously is the author of White Fragility, which is really one of the most despicable books I would say that's ever been written. I think she also fits into that category as a thinker and likely as a human being. Is it reasonable for you to talk a little bit about that? I don't know how you managed that, and I don't want to blow the punch line, but I think most of the content of that exchange with her they don't want me to talk about at this point to avoid giving away spoilers.

That conversation does go to a place that maybe will be unexpected for a lot of people. The fact that she's in the movie is no secret; we have her in the trailer. That kind of goes back to what I just said. I think for her, she's probably the prime example of this. You would think if you didn't know any better, it would be difficult to get Robin DiAngelo into a room, and that she'd be looking out for anyone who maybe isn't in her tribe. You might suggest that possibly Robin DiAngelo, if she was even vaguely informed about absolutely anything that she purports to be doing, would know who the hell you are. You would think, but apparently not. I think she's probably the prime example of someone who, in her day-to-day life, almost never interacts with or speaks to anyone who is not as far to the left as she is on all these issues, or at least almost as far. That's just the world that she's in. When I'm sitting across the room from her having a conversation, it's probably the first time in years, if not ever, that she has—unwittingly in this case—found herself sitting in a room with someone who fundamentally disagrees with her.

=> 01:32:29

Living in an ideological bubble can blind you to opposing perspectives.

You might suggest that possibly Robin D'Angelo, if she was even vaguely informed about absolutely anything that she purports to be doing, would know who the hell you are, right? You would think so, but apparently not. I think she's probably the prime example of someone who, in her day-to-day life, almost never interacts with or speaks to anyone who is not as far to the left as she is on all these issues, or at least almost as far. That's just the world that she's in. So, when I'm sitting across the room with her having a conversation, it's probably the first time in years, if not ever, that she has unwittingly found herself sitting in a room with someone who fundamentally disagrees with her about almost everything.

These academic leftist types live in a kind of bubble. For a lot of us, we interact with people of differing viewpoints all the time. For me, obviously, because I am conservative and my family's conservative, and I work here at the Daily Wire, most of the people that I'm around are conservative. However, I still interact with people that are far-left all the time. It would be a lot more difficult for someone on the left to do to me what we did to Robin D'Angelo because I am aware that these people are out there. I know who they are, and I'm looking out for that kind of thing. It would be hard for them to pull off because I'm just not in the same kind of bubble that she is.

Two more questions about the movie: What did you learn as a consequence of doing it, and why should people go see it as far as you're concerned? There are several things, but maybe the main thing that I learned, or rather had illustrated for me, is the extent to which a lot of people fall for this. There are the people that push it, like the Robin D'Angelo types and the women who run the Race to Dinner, such as Sarah Rao. She is arguably the worst person on Twitter. Every single thing that woman does is self-serving and malevolent to the core. She runs those dinners where white women pay to be humiliated by two unbelievably narcissistic psychopaths so that they can feel good about themselves without actually having to put in any moral effort.

Those types of people, the ones running the show, are one thing. I don't know how much they even believe a lot of what they're saying. I don't think they believe all of it, certainly. They're grifters and con artists making a lot of money on this stuff. It's not very complicated. What's more interesting to me are the women who sit around that table, paying money to be there, or the people who willingly attend one of these seminars or read Robin D'Angelo's book. I'm more interested in them and what's going on with them.

What I found making the film is that you really can't overstate the guilt that these people are walking around with. White guilt is a very real phenomenon. I knew that making the movie, but having it illustrated so profoundly was still pretty enlightening to me. A lot of these people are walking around with a lot of guilt. For a sane, rational white person like myself and you, it's hard to understand because I've never spent any time feeling guilty about slavery or Jim Crow. I had nothing to do with it. It's just not something I've ever felt guilty about at all. So, it's hard for us to understand people who are not only feeling guilt about it but are overcome with guilt by this kind of thing.

How much of that, though, is that they want to signal how overcome by guilt they are so that they look like hyper-moral agents? I see the same thing with mothers in particular who brandish their trans children like a flag of pride.

=> 01:36:25

People flaunt their guilt to signal moral virtue, but it's often just a substitute for religious fulfillment.

Guilt, especially for a sane, rational white person like myself and you, can be hard to understand. I've never spent any time feeling guilty about slavery or Jim Crow because I had nothing to do with it. It's hard for us to understand people who are not only feeling guilt but are overcome with it. How much of that is genuine guilt, and how much is signaling how overcome by guilt they are to appear as hypermoral agents? I see a similar pattern with mothers who brandish their trans children as a flag of pride, showcasing their moral virtue. This parading of self-flagellation as an indication of the profundity of their guilt is a malevolent game. Although there is genuine moral confusion mixed in, the self-serving nature of it is evident, especially when these women attend dinners in groups to signal their moral virtue to each other.

In the context of the "Race to Dinner" example, which takes up seven or eight minutes in the movie but in reality lasts two hours, you can see these women sitting around the table, crying and overcome with emotion, talking about their racism. They share examples of their so-called racist acts, but none of these examples are actual racism. While some of it is showing off, there is real guilt at the core. My theory is that this guilt is a replacement for religion. Almost all of these women are irreligious, even if they call themselves Christians. Traditionally, religion has provided an answer for guilt. I don't feel any racial or white guilt, but I do feel guilt for my wrongdoings. I turn to my faith for answers on why I feel guilt and what to do about it. Without religion, people still feel guilt for their sins but lack a way to understand or interpret it. They look for someone to tell them what to do with the guilt, and race hustlers are there to provide an explanation.

When you were a somewhat propagating 24-year-old, you needed to channel the meaninglessness and guilt associated with your unmowed life into something properly sacrificial. You got married and had kids, which provided a pathway to discharge your moral duty. It's necessary for human beings to discharge their moral duty; otherwise, they'll be overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy and self-deprecation. We are communal and social creatures who must live in relationship to others. Violating this instinct goes against our deepest instincts or our most divine calling. For the typical person, you find the expression of your self-centeredness in responsibility to your wife, long-term committed responsibility, and to your kids and grandkids, extending to that multigenerational responsibility.

=> 01:40:26

Embrace responsibility to find deeper meaning and fulfill your moral duty.

Something that was properly sacrificial is when you got married and had kids, providing a pathway where you can discharge your moral duty. It's necessary for human beings to discharge their moral duty; otherwise, they'll be overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy and self-deprecation. This is because we are communal and social creatures, and we have to live in relationship to other people. If we don't do that, we violate our deepest instincts or our most divine calling. For the typical person, you find that expiration of your self-centeredness in responsibility to your wife, like long-term committed responsibility, and to your kids and grandkids, contributing to that multigenerational endeavor. If we didn't have that propensity for guilt, we wouldn't be social the way that we are. However, this can be exploited by sadistic, narcissistic, histrionic psychopaths, and the women who run that race to dinner are great examples of that.

Let me ask you one more question, Matt. I don't think I could do what you did, and I wonder what that points to in terms of the difference between our temperaments. You were in a room with all those people, and they kind of figured out that you are, in fact, a conservative interloper. What was that scene? Why were you there? That was a group, kind of a seminar, for white people struggling with their grief over their privilege. If you're a white person with white privilege and you're grieving your privilege, it's a support group for that. That was where we started the film.

I would have a very difficult time doing that because producing that kind of interpersonal tension in a group is extremely discomforting for me. I'm not proclaiming this as a virtue by any stretch of the imagination; it's a vice that I've had to learn to control. If you're too much like that, you can't say things that need to be said because you're too concerned with causing emotional distress in the moment. You seem to be able to tolerate a lot of that, and I'm wondering how you actually felt in that situation where all these people were displaying signs of discomfort, and you were being unmasked. Why are you willing to do it?

In the moment, it's extremely uncomfortable and not fun, as you can imagine. It's not an enjoyable experience to be in that room, to begin with, even if I was standing off in the corner watching. I'd find it quite miserable, and that's the case with most of the scenes in this movie and the last movie. Being in rooms that I wouldn't choose recreationally to be in with those people goes against our wiring to intentionally say and do things that create more tension and bring negative attention to you. I don't think anyone is wired to do that, at least I'm not. So in the moment, it's not very enjoyable.

However, we are making a film, trying to tell a story, and attempting to reveal something in a humorous, comedic way. I have that ever-present in my mind, so I'm willing to be in those rooms and cause these extremely uncomfortable situations because we are telling a story. In both of these films, this one in particular but even the last one, we are exploring and investigating an important issue. But even before that, I look at it as a film. We are storytellers, and we are telling a story. So, to me, when we're making the movie, that comes first. What do we need for the scene? What do we need for the story? Here's what we need for it, and I'm just going to go in and get it, no matter what. That's all that matters: turn the cameras on, let's roll, and let me go get what we need for this.

=> 01:44:40

When you're committed to telling a story, discomfort is just part of the process—push through it and capture what matters.

Uncomfortable situations arise because we are telling a story. In both of these films, particularly this one, but even the last one, we are exploring and investigating an important issue. However, before that, I see it as a film, a story we are telling. We are storytellers, and the story comes first. When making the movie, it’s about what we need for the scene and the story. I focus on getting what we need for the scene, regardless of how uncomfortable I feel, because that’s what matters. I probably feel similar to how you would feel, but I suppress it to the best of my ability.

In contrast, Sarah exhibits an underlying histrionic, narcissistic sadism. She takes positive delight in the misery she produces at those dinners. She’s not uncomfortable at all and justifies it by thinking that these contemptible fools get exactly what they deserve. If they are stupid enough to let her prey on them, she has no sympathy for them. This is the attitude of a true sadist. I spoke to a woman whose father was the founder of the Church of Satan. His attitude was that if you’re stupid enough to fall for his nonsense, you deserve every horrible thing that comes your way. This is the same attitude Sarah takes, believing that if these fools let her fleece them, they deserve it. It’s a very predatory and malevolent orientation towards the world.

There’s a lot of this predatory behavior in the radical leftist world. At protests, especially when I spoke to university students, I saw young women in groups braying out their cliches, which was toxic and awful. Worse were the predatory men in their groups, pretending to be allies to connive them into bed. This narcissistic, malevolent, predatory psychopathy is terrible to watch, especially as so many confused people from devastated families fall prey to these radical leftist grifters. You did a lovely job in the movie exposing this, and I imagine it will be quite successful.

The final number of theaters is still to be determined, but we’re in hundreds now, adding more every day due to strong pre-sales. This is the first time the Daily Wire has put a movie in theaters. While conservatives have done this before, it’s still relatively rare. There’s a risk involved, but it’s worth it because there’s an actual scoreboard—the box office. If conservatives want to take back the culture and get involved in entertainment, they need to compete in arenas where success is measurable. If the movie is successful, it’s undeniable; if not, it’s embarrassing, but you have to take that risk.

We talked earlier about taking smart risks, and I believe this is one. It’s an entertaining movie hitting at the right time for the culture, and I think the audience will rally around it for both the message and its entertainment value. I feel cautiously optimistic about its success. The movie comes out on September 13th in theaters, and you can pre-order tickets at mist.com. Pre-ordering is important for the film’s success.

Matt, you have a knack for delving into complex social issues in an explicable way and timing it well. "Am I a Racist?" fits that pattern. Good luck with your theatrical release, and I hope we can discuss its outcome in the future. For everyone watching and listening, I’ll be talking to Matt for another half an hour about his career development. He mentioned that adopting adult seriousness and finding a supportive partner transformed his approach, and I want to analyze that further. Join us on the Daily Wire side for that. Thank you, Matt, and best wishes for your movie’s success.