'White Guys: We Suck and We're Sorry': Glenn reacts to bizarre new video that apologizes for years of white privilege

“White Guys: We suck And We’re Sorry.” That is the title of a new 2-minute video written and produced by Stephen Parkhurst, who gained some notoriety for a similarly themed video he created last year entitled “Millennials: We Suck And We’re Sorry.” According to the video’s YouTube description, it is time for “straight white dudes” to apologize. “It's not that we're against inequality,” the description claims. “We just can't relate to it.”

Check out the video below (WARNING: While it may feel like you are watching a Saturday Night Live skit, alas, you are not – this is real):

Glenn came across the video last night, and he immediately got to writing a monologue in response. On radio this morning, Glenn questioned what exactly he is supposed to apologize for. Is being born a certain way now a crime? Are all white men really as evil as the clip suggests? Finally, is apologizing for the actions of those who came before us the new ‘status quo’ in the collectivist society progressives are fighting so hard for?

“I don't even know what I'm supposed to apologize for,” Glenn said. “Being born a certain way? Are you going to apologize for being born black? Are you going to apologize for being born Hispanic? I'm not going to apologize for being born white, and I'm not going to apologize for being born a male.”

“My impression was that the entire movement was supposed about how you're not supposed to apologize for the way were you born,” Stu added. “And yet here we are apologizing for the way we were born.”

Below is a rough transcript of the monologue:

I don't know what we're doing as a society. We're tearing apart absolutely everything and splitting us into little groups. Now white men suck, and we need to apologize. This is something now that is sweeping our college campuses… You'll think it's a joke. You'll think it's a Saturday Night Live kit, but it's not, they're serious. ‘Hi, I'm white. I'm a male, and I suck. And I've oppressed people for so long.’ Now, I haven't oppressed anybody. I don't apologize for my whiteness or for being born a male. There are some things I can't change. Oh, no, I guess now I can change that. There are some things I don't want to change and being a white male, no matter where I live in the world, I'm not ashamed of. I never will be. Yes, I am a white. A white man. Oh, no, but all white males don't suck. Some have sucked, sure. Some still suck. Uh-huh.

But isn't it racist to condemn an entire group based on color? And what's even more amazing: This is coming out of the university systems that are trying to teach us how to be tolerant. What's more amazing is this is more than just racism. It's also sexism and gender bashing. All three of those things were constantly being lectured to as being bad. All three of those things I was taught was wrong growing up in a household in the 1960s – run by a white male. Is it possible I learned that those things were wrong? But could we look at the theory of all white men suck for a minute?

Robert Mugabe, white male. He sucked. Wait, no, he's black. Well, a white male Che [Guevara]. He sucked. He killed all kinds of people. Hated homosexuals. Hated blacks. Oh, no, wait. He was Hispanic. Well, Mao. Mao, he really sucked. But wait, he was Chinese. So maybe it isn't race because some of the biggest killers of the last 100 years were of different colors. Okay, it's got to be something different because Robert Byrd sucked and he was a white male. He was a Klan member. But he was a Democrat. Hitler sucked. He was white. But he was a socialist. Stalin sucked, and he was a white male. But he was a communist. Yes, they're all men. Maybe that's it. It's just that they're all men. No, Margaret Sanger, she sucked. She's responsible for the death of millions. And she was white, but she was a woman and a progressive.

So the Grinch puzzled and puzzled until his puzzler was sore. To suck because you're a white male isn't quite right. Maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit more. Abe Lincoln, he was a white male. He didn't suck. Jack Kennedy, he was a white male. He didn't suck. The new pope, he's a white male. A lot of people don't think he sucked. The first beloved black president, he's a white male. Wait. Tesla was a white male. He gave us the outlet and the power generation that we now have in our damns. The reason why you can hear my voice today is because of Tesla. He was a white male. Louis Pasteur is the reason why many of us are alive today. He was a white male. He gave us antibiotics. Henry Ford was a white guy. He gave us the assembly line which created a Detroit that was out in the front lines in early 1900s as a city that was an absolute boon for blacks and anyone who wanted and needed good jobs. Yes, Henry Ford was personally a racist and horribly anti-Semitic. But I believe he was also a progressive Democrat. His work is responsible for one of the largest cash cows for the progressive movement, the Ford Foundation.

‘Wait a minute,’ said the Grinch. If the left hates the white man so much, one of the worst white men who ever created a whole bunch of jobs and a whole bunch of good things. But let's not concentrate on that. Let's just concentrate on his racism, his blood money that he made. If they hate him so much, then they should refrain from taking that blood money from the Ford Foundation. FDR, he was a white male, beloved by the elite and left. And of course, we know he didn't suck. He only put the Japanese behind barbed wire. He was a progressive Democrat, you know. Woodrow Wilson, there's a white man for you. Oh, college professors love him. Same college professors who now want me to call all white men evil, continually put Woodrow Wilson as one of the greatest presidents to ever live – in the same category as Abraham Lincoln and that other guy who built the concentration camps for people of different color. What's so odd about this grouping is the fact that one of them freed the slaves as a white Republican and the other two are progressive Democrats. And Wilson re-segregated the army – a profound racist and a general in the war on women. Hmm.

I'm noticing a pattern here. LBJ was a white male. He was also a progressive democratic icon. Everybody loved him. He was a creator of the great society. He was also the man who single-handedly shut down the civil rights legislation and kept it down for a decade before it was finally reintroduced when he was president. It was a decade of strife, of bloodshed, and assassinations of Malcolm X and MLK. If LBJ had been on the right side, none of that stuff would have had to happen. Side note: The legislation was proposed by a white male, a president who is white. No, not John F. Kennedy, of course. You'd have to use Common Core math to make that a decade. No, it was Dwight Eisenhower. A white male. Yes, who was also one of those Republicans.

The white heritage that we're supposed to now hate is also the Judeo-Christian heritage which first freed the slaves in Egypt and then led to the enlightenment and the Second Great Awakening which freed the slaves in America. It is the white heritage that gave us Benjamin Franklin, yes, that evil founder, who was not only a strong abolitionist but also started the first public hospital and gave the world his invention of the potbelly stove for free. It's that heritage or the so-called white heritage that is so evil that gave the world the electric light, the movie camera, the television, the Internet, the moon landing. Yes, blacks and people of all different colors and races were involved in that heritage. But here's the conundrum: You really can't condemn an entire culture and claim that this culture has made it impossible for the man of color to participate in any meaningful way and then try to claim that the black man or the yellow man or the red man or any man or any woman was powerful enough to add any significant contribution to the amazing accomplishments of this evil white culture. Because if you did, in doing so, you would invalidate your entire argument.

Oh, man, my puzzler is sore again. Of course, if you didn't do that, then you would have to point out that what happened here in this white male-run evil culture wasn't all bad. In fact, some, if not much of it, was profoundly good for humans. I mean it wasn't the Asian culture that did these things. Or the actual African culture that did this. Or the female Hispanic culture, which again seems to undercut the argument that the white heritage isn't all bad. A lot of things do go into the damning of a man.

I can't imagine what part a man's race might play. I always was taught by my father and my grandfather, both white males, that racism was when you judged a man based solely on his race and lumped everyone together due to their skin or to their heritage. They taught me that that's what Hitler did – judged people by groups, put people in groups of race, color, or ability. It's what led to Hitler killing the handicapped because they were no longer people. They were just a category.

I have an idea. Actually, with the way things are going today in America, it seems to be less of an idea or at least less of a workable idea and more of, I don't know, a dream. Let's leave it at that. I have a dream that one day black children and white children will all play together and work together and love each other and build a better future. I have a dream that a man will not be judged on his sexuality or his gender or his race, but rather the content of his individual character. I know, impossible, isn't it? We all seem to be moving in the opposite direction. But, hey, this is still America where a man can still dream, right?

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.